9/11 pilots must have been very good

[McKenzie]

found this article that suggests considerable skill would have been needed to accomplish what the hi-jackers did. BTW, if this is yet another dupe could someone just POLITELY point that out?

<snip>

The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order.

<snip>

http://www.newsgateway.ca/9_11_aircraft_remote_control_.htm

[BikeWriter]

1. Yes, it was impossible. It was also impossible the NORAD...

...I served with failed to intercept at least one of those planes.

[baldguy]

3. Unless they were ordered not to.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. I don't know where I read it, but on that day, wasn't the Air Force

running a war game & didn't that confuse the people who would have intercepted the flights?

The only question I have is, is it possible that the terrorists knew that these war games would take place on that day?

[BikeWriter]

11. They were supposedly running several war games.

This was an inside job.

[k-robjoe]

229. If you´re still there

Could you comment on this :

One would think that half an hour after Flight 175 had crashed into the second tower, and it was clear to all that this was a concerted(?) act of terrorism, that jets would have been scrambled to patrol over Washington D.C.
( For the eventuality of another jet being hijacked. )

But apparently none were. Does this make any sense at all?

[BikeWriter]

10. ...Or diverted somewhere else.

:(

[meppie-meppie not]

209. it's a scary freaky thought but one I've been toying with too. n/t

[madrchsod]

2. do you mean flying the jet into the

floors of the trade tower that were structurally the weakest in the building? flying a plane straight into the wall of the pentagon at ground level? hell anyone could do that with a liitle cessna training.my advice-forget all about it...understand-

[demodewd]

8. Please explain.

Floors that were structurally the weakest? Please explain.

[Guaranteed]

12. Well, shit, it obviously didn't even happen, then. nt

[BikeWriter]

13. Hee hee hee! Ask a pilot about the difficulty of hitting the

Pentagon precisely at ground level. It was not an unskilled pilot.

[LARED]

14. You are making the mistake of assuming the pilot was

trying to hit the Pentagon at ground level. If it certainly plausible that he just happened to crash at ground level.

[demodewd]

15. not plausible

It is not plausible. The plane leveled out and continued in a straight line.

[LARED]

18. Really?

As I recall the jet supposedly skidded off the ground before it hit.

But lets not forget the real issue. The CT'er claims it was impossible for the pilot to have been so precise.

But there is no evidence at all that he was precise.

[demodewd]

19. Evidence of no skidding

The jet did not skid on the ground. That we know is factual. It would have torn up the Pentagon lawn. This did not happen.

re: precision. I would say that the jet was precise if its intention was to crash into the first floor of the West Wing of the Pentagon. Of course we have no way of proving that that was the intention of the commercial jet.

In accordance with the evidence that I believe points to remote control,the jet would have been very precise in that it was homed in at that exact spot,programmed to hit the newly remodeled section housing Naval Intelligence.

[LARED]

20. Evidence of no skidding???

You have evidence of this? Please share.

[demodewd]

21. Please share

The burden of proof is on you. I see no evidence of skidding but the burden of proof is on you.You made the statement that you believe the jet skidded. Please share.

[LARED]

22. Whether the jet skidded or not is immaterial to my position

You're the one that stated there was evidence it did not skid. So show me.

And you stated its approach was level into the Pentagon. I'd like to see your evidence for that as well.

Even if true this of course still does not mean an expert pilot or remote control was required. So why are you clinging to that notion?

[Abe Linkman]

28. What evidence do you have that Hani was piloting a fighter jet?

The video images show a small jet (whose dark tail is painted the color of a fighter jet). Hani was allegedly in a large commercial airliner (B757). Are you now claiming that Hani was piloting a fighter jet?

[LARED]

30. Video image show a small jet? Really????

What are you talking about? The only images I have seen are the ones from the parking lot. They show no detail of any jet.

[Abe Linkman]

31. That sure isn't a great big B757 in the video.

I don't think anyone has claimed it shows a lot of detail, but what it does show is enough for even an engineer from Drexel to know that those are images of the attack jet, and it's way too small to be a commercial airliner. Note that the tail is NOT the colors you see on AA planes. It's painted dark gray or black. Those are the colors used on military jets. Also, and you don't even have to look close to see it, there's the telltale image of missile vapor. AA planes don't carry missiles. Military attack jets do.

I'm surprised that an engineer who has posted on DU for three years, isn't more knowledgeable than you appear to be.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

36. Those images show nothing of the sort.

those are images of the attack jet,

Next you will be telling me the tooth fairy is real.

and it's way too small to be a commercial airliner. Note that the tail is NOT the colors you see on AA planes. It's painted dark gray or black. Those are the colors used on military jets.

You can see the color of the jet in these images? You can tell what size it is? Wow, you are amazing. I should calling you "Amazing Abe." Perhaps AA for short. Let me test your powers of vision. It will be an easy test for a man of your extraordinary ability, but I feel a test is in order to establish once and of all that you are indeed what you claim to be.

What color pants am I wearing as I type this. No cheating.

Also, and you don't even have to look close to see it, there's the telltale image of missile vapor.

Telltale missile vapor? Man you are good. Please explain to those of us burdened with normal vision how you know you see missile vapor.

AA planes don't carry missiles. Military attack jets do.

I'm not so sure that's true based other CT'er fantasies about the WTC. Maybe flight 77 had "pods" and spray nozzles installed to create a more hollywoodish effect.

[Abe Linkman]

40. Agree. No evidence of a B757 can be seen in those images.

I assume that you didn't crop the images or otherwise modify them, and assuming that, the next thing you you'll be telling us is that there's a ghost plane in there even though it's obvious that the explosion and fireball isn't accompanied by a B757.

What caused the explosion? Missile? If so, was it fired from a nearby truck? From a jet? If so, WHERDY Go?

It's like other Official Conspiracy fantasies about the Pentagon and the WTC. The OCT'ers telling us that the vibrations from the Naudet Brothers filming (under contract with the Rendon Group) got amplified so much that for the first time in recorded history, high-rise steel buildings, in a fit of anger, suddently collapsed and fell straight down
into their own footprints.

Who knows where these OCT'ers come up with this stuff? Is it the same folks at Hill & Knowlton who brought you the fantasy about the baby incubators in Kuwait? CIA? Rendon Group? Who gives these OCT'ers their Marching Orders?

Wait, wait. I know what's next: Saddam had WMD & that's why he had to be taken out.
(Hill & Knowlton)

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

43. Why did the Pentagon authorize the release of those images?

They do not show a plane large enough to be a B757...and if a B757 HAD crashed at the Pentagon, you would be able to see it even in those relatively low-quality images. A B757 is so large that it would definitely be seen in at least the one image which shows an aircraft tail and missile vapor.

Also, just a quick comment. You should refrain from making statements about aspects of 9/11 which you know nothing about. It's like a stealth right-winger posing as a progressive Democrat, or like a Disinfo agent posing as an objective truth seeker. Stick to the stuff you know: like
chemistry.

[LARED]

50. The AA is back tracking????

They do not show a plane large enough to be a B757

I thought you agreed the images could not establish any sort of plane was present.

[Abe Linkman]

54. Images eliminate a B757 as the attack plane, but doesn't eliminate an F16

Furthermore, the images do not eliminate a fighter jet, but there is evidence in them that supports the notion that a fighter jet was the attack jet and that it may well have fired a missile at the building.

Remember: Defense Secretary Donald ("Good to meet ya, Saddam") Rumsfeld himself said that a missile had struck the Pentagon.

It's the Official Conspiracy Story that is evidence-free.

[LARED]

57. AA, this circular posting game is booooooring.

If you were able to to prove anything using those pentagon images, you would have by now, yet you continue babble about evidence for fighter jets. Face facts AA, the images do not eliminate or substantiate anything regarding what hit the pentagon.

Just repeating that your amazing powers of vision supports the notion of a fighter jet isn't impressing me.

[Abe Linkman]

59. Evidence that proves the most logical theory is boring to you?

Why? You are interested in learning what really happened on 9/11, aren't you? That's why you come to this forum isn't it? Wouldn't it be better to just admit that the OCT doesn't add up, but for whatever reason (wink wink), you still want to believe it? You know, self-respect and all that.

[LARED]

61. AA stop dreaming. You have no evidence. (nt)

[Abe Linkman]

62. Deny, deny, deny. But, the mountain of evidence continues to pile up.

And, none of it supports the Official "Cavemen Did It" Theory. That's gotta be upsetting, and I understand how it must make you feel. I can accept that you were misled and then got caught up in a position that you feel trapped in even now. But, you can change. No one is going to belittle you for admitting that bushco fooled you, too.

Wouldn't it be better to abandon your partisan position and replace it with a sincere desire to learn the truth...no matter where that truth might lead you to?

[LARED]

63. If there is a mountain of evidence, you might try to produce it (nt)

[meppie-meppie not]

184. LARED, I would refer you to the numerous publications

Paul Thompson's "Timeline"; Peter Lance: "1000 Years for Revenge","9/11 Commission Cover-up"; David Ray Griffin "The New Pearl Harbor"; Michael C. Ruppert "Crossing the Rubicon"; Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed "The War On Freedom"; James Bamford "A Pretext for War", "The Puzzle Palace", "Body of Secrets"... those are just a start. Questions need to be asked and should be asked.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

45. What is the "color of a fighter jet"?

We use many paint schemes depending on the plane and the mission. Fighters aren't all painted one color. What color are you referring to?

[Abe Linkman]

46. The Pentagon image shows a fighter jet tail that's dark gray or black.

You said: "We use many paint schemes depending on the plane and the mission. Fighters aren't all painted one color. What color are you referring to?"

Question: Are you in or associated with the U.S. Armed Forces?

[MercutioATC]

49. Ok, and black is "the color of a fighter jet"?

???


No, I'm not a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, but I've seen pictures of airplanes (as most people have) and I know two things:

1) Different paint schemes are used on military planes.

2) Most fighters do not have "dark gray or black" tails.

You disagree?

[Abe Linkman]

56. We're only talking about the Pentagon attack jet.

My parent's house is located very close to a huge military airfield. Fighter jets are a commonplace over their house, and I've likely viewed far more (in person) than you ever have seen in pictures and in-person, combined.

[MercutioATC]

93. That doesn't change the question.

Yes, there are fighters with dark-colored tails.

There are at least an equal number of fighters without dark-colored tails.

There are also plenty of non-military planes with dark-colored tails.


Having a "dark gray or black" tail has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a fighter.

[AZCat]

94. I would state it differently...

Being a "dark gray or black" blob on a five frame low resolution video has nothing to do with being a fighter.

[MercutioATC]

97. I was going to get to the video quality in a bit AZCat...

But thanks for bringing it up.


I just wanted to hear how a dark tail suggested the plane was a fighter first...

[AZCat]

103. Oh - sorry...

I apologize for jumping the gun.

There's a good chance Abe will ignore my post anyway and post in response to yours. Whether or not he addresses your question is open to speculation.

[MercutioATC]

109. No problem...

...it's not like I was expecting a real answer anyway...

[AZCat]

110. You mean like below?

I see that you are now channeling Ronald Reagan...

The "objective" road sure seems to have a lot of detours. :eyes:

[MercutioATC]

111. Was that really addressed to me, AZCat?

I don't think so, but I wanted to clarify.

[AZCat]

112. I may have been unclear

I was scoffing at the parallels drawn between you and the late RR in a post downthread (#105).

That the poster in question was busy examining that particular tangent rather than answering your post was the purpose of my "objective road" statement.

I apologize if my intent was unclear.

[MercutioATC]

113. No, it's my fault.

Seems I AM a little slow tonight.


:hi:

[AZCat]

114. Don't sweat it - you still got a long way to go to match Ronnie...

By the way - I heard y'all got snowed in this weekend. Did you have any trouble?

[MercutioATC]

116. We definitely got snowed on.

Luckily, only about 8 or 9 inches where I live, so I'm still mobile.

I haven't dealt with my driveway yet, so it takes a couple of back-and-forths to get in and out at times, but no big issues.

[Sweet Pea]

86. If Ol' Abe

could come up with at least 1 (one) witness who said something to the effect that "The aircraft looked like a military jet - was even painted like a military jet, not painted like an American Airlines jet like everyone else says", then his credibility would inch up a millimeter (how's THAT for a mixed metaphor?).

Thing is, I don't believe any such eye-witness exists.

[Abe Linkman]

87. Thingy is, ol "sweet pea" is a partisan, not an OBJECTIVE truthseeker.

I don't know why anyone would expect ol "sweet pea" to be able to make a
logical case for why the bush 9/11 story is anything but a lie. How could s/he? The bush 9/11 story is a Fairy Tale.

[Sweet Pea]

91. Didn't think you could....

:P

[Abe Linkman]

102. Your silence is consent, right?

An objective person would deny being a partisan.

[Sweet Pea]

106. Your idea

of an "OBJECTIVE truthseeker" is based, in my opinion, in nothing more than obfuscation and a refusal to answer questions and challenges to your assumptions and claims head on.

This is a classic example - I said that if you could produce a witness who backed up your thesis that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a fighter aircraft, your credibility would rise. Not only did you not produce any eyewitness statements to that fact, you changed the subject of the post back to me.

You simply cannot answer a straight-forward question. If that is "OBJECTIVE truthseeking", then no thank you.

[seatnineb]

167. O.K objective truth seeker.....

Tell me what the fuck this was circling over your beloved D.C both before and after the pentagon was hit...........

Ray LaHood of Illinois, backed up Mica's account, saying he had seen a plane flying low near the Capitol dome on Tuesday morning and he believed it was before the Pentagon had been hit.



"As I was crossing the street I saw a large passenger plane come into the air space very near the Capitol dome, circle around the west side of the dome,'' he said.
LaHood said he spoke to another congressman who was with him,and I said, I think this is awfully peculiar that a plane would be flying that pattern, I've never seen one fly that near to the Capitol.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl...

Oh .....yeah..........I forgot.......it flew into the Pentagon...Right?

Joe Hurst, is general manager of the Oval Room restaurant at
Lafayette Square,
..." But he doesn't really complain about business. "I saw it go
overhead, the plane," says Joe Hurst, describing the American flight that circled the White House.
His assistant saw it dive into the Pentagon as he drove to work.
"Last week, I was having flashbacks," he says.
Boston Globe, 9/21/01 article by Brian McGrory

Go and check out your the hallowed 9/11 cOMMISSION report........and then tell me whether fl77 at any point crossed the Pontomac......

[k-robjoe]

247. Map

"American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330 degree turn.At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed straight towards the Pentagon and downtown Washington."
9/11 commision report.




( From this site :
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/nat_FLIGHT_1102_aa77.html )

So it never came over the White House / Capitol area.

( See also : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=25037&mesg_id=25037 )

[Sweet Pea]

248. Comments

First, think you can get a bigger picture of the Capitol next time?

Second, I can't find any confirmation other than speculation that whatever aircraft people saw "circling the capital" was the American flight that hit the Pentagon. I don't know how many aircraft were in the mid-eastern seaboard skies at that time, all likely on vectors from air traffic controllers, being directed to land at either, in our area, Dulles or National or BWI - but likely dozens at one point. Ya think that it might NOT have been Flt 77 that people saw over the capitol?

I do. Every map and eyewitness account I have seen, either published or from people I know personally, have the aircraft basically flying up I-395 after the descending turn. The aircraft never HAD to cross the Potomac.

[seatnineb]

249. In restricted airspace.............no way !

As for the trajectory.............

How bout' this.......

He said he saw the plane flying around the Pentagon
and disappear into the Pentagon," said Lt. Col. Pete
Brooks, a spokesman for the adjutant general. "I
guarantee you Gen. Spears was shocked over this."
http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2001/09/11/2001091111898.htm

Or this.........

Ken Ford : One eyewitness, State Department employee Ken Ford, said he watched from the 15th floor of the State Department Annex, just across the PotomacRiver from the Pentagon. We were watching the airport through binoculars, Ford said, referring to Reagan National Airport, a short distance away. The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turnedback toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hitthe building.
http://www.eric-bart.net/iwpb/witness.html

[MercutioATC]

98. So there's no witness you can cite, Abe?

:shrug:

[meppie-meppie not]

182. I think that the 19 eyewitness accounts needs to be examined with

care and an open mind. If they are given any kind of scrutiny it's found that these 19 eyewitness accounts turn out to be none. So there really are no eyewitness accounts of a 757 going into the pentagon.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

[DulceDecorum]

89. The plane did NOT skid on the ground.

First of all,
it would have left some damn skid marks on the Impeccable Penta-lawn.
There are NO SKID MARKS in ANY of the photos of the Incredible Penta-lawn.

Secondly,
a few months later,
one of the firefighters there,
in a training session with other fighterfighters
stated bluntlty that the plane NEVER touched the Penta-lawn.

(The link is available on one of the PentaThreads.)

[seatnineb]

166. To skid/bounce on the ground

Dulce.........

Don't you love it when those Penta eye witnesses contadict each other.......

Like super skater.....Steve Riskus....

"I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... <snip>..There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing... It was definitely an American Airlines jet... There is no doubt about that... When I got to work I checked it out."
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta13.html.

.....and USA today reporter Vin Narayanan....
The plane actually skidded off the ground before it hit the wall.
http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20020909002/tscript.htm

Damn......wheres Ron Harvey and Sarah Roberts when we need them...........

[meppie-meppie not]

178. try this, it perhaps may help you understand why some of us are

questioning the "official" story.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BikeWriter]

25. No mistake, and I'll stake my degree in Fire Technology on it.

Why wouldn't he want to hit at ground level? Fire goes up and out! He expended the maximum energy possible in the building, instead of glancing across the top.

[LARED]

26. He may have wanted to hit at ground level or

he may have just got lucky. The point is that no one knows.

No one even knows if the Pentagon was a preplanned target or a target of opportunity.

[BikeWriter]

35. He may have gotten lucky, yes, but when I see a plan work, I figure...

it was planned and executed well. For instance, why should the plane which flew all the way to the Pentagon have presumed they would succeed instead of dying in vain? The answer is simple. They knew they would. They knew the interceptors were diverted.

[LARED]

37. The problem is you only saw the outcome

You don't really know what the plan was. Imagine if the plane had hit Captial Hill low and hard, according to you it was a well planned and executed.

[BikeWriter]

38. So maybe all the successful hits were accidents then! n/t

[LARED]

39. No not accidents

My only point is that the Pentagon MAY have be a target of opportunity, rather than a preplanned target.

I think it was preplanned, but even if it was no one has any idea if the first floor on that particular section was the target. The target may have just been "the pentagon."

[Abe Linkman]

42. Preplanned for the very day that war games & terror exercises took place?

Preplanned for:

* Day when boosh would be "out of the loop".

* Day after Rumsfeld acknowledged irresponsible Pentagon financial accountability.

* Scenario in which all suspicious evidence pointing to self-attacks at Pentagon, WTC and crash at peculiar site in Pennsylvania could all be "sold" to the public (via compliant corporate-owned librul media) as:
Coincidences. Thuh, thuh, that's ALL, folks! Just coincidences. AMAZING coincdeinces, maybe. But, just coincidences. The right-wing is too incompetent to pre-plan and carry-off an inside job without arousing suspicions among thoughtful people all over planet Earth.

* Preplanned targets of opportunity or luck of Osama?

[LARED]

48. AA, thanks for the reminder

You still owe me an explianation as to how the "war game" planned for that day was part of the so called 9/11 conspiracy.

[Abe Linkman]

66. I think I've figured out the point you are trying to make.

If your point is that it is more accurate to say they were planned to be
perceived as merely coincidences or luck in timimg, I won't object to that characterization.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

84. The word "dope" was a rhyme with your "nope" & refers to your logic.

Why would you think otherwise?

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

218. One Small Point, Mr. Lared

Much of this discussion seems to be predicated on the idea that the pilot aimed to strike the outter wall at about ground level, and therefore achieved something precise. This not only is unproved, but seems to me unlikely. The best points to strike would be in the enclosed space at the center of the building, or one of the interior walls. In either case, the incendiary effect of the fuel explosion would have involved much more of the building; the higher ranked offices are in the inner corridors; the inner walls are presumeably less well armored than the outer ones. An unskilled pilot aiming to impact in the open interior, or against an interior wall, might well have, through clumsy error, in fact impacted low down on an outer wall.

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

254. Once Again, Sir

You go off on a tangent, rather than engage the point made. That point was that the assumption the airplane struck the intended point may well be false, and therefore the point of impact cannot rightly be used as foundation for a claim the pilot showed great skill in striking it.

This style of argument is often encountered when dealing with people who are peddling nonsense, for such people, whether by design or instinctive cunning, operate by raising distractions rather than logical and informed ponts. The aim of the strategem is simply to draw the exchange ever further afield in the hope that the challenge to some point or other will go unoticed and be forgotten amid the ever-expanding filligree created by the fantasist.

Your engagement with the point that the point of impact was hardly the optimum one for causing damage to the personnel and structure is awaited, though of course not with bated breath. Rather than engage it, you have provided two pictures, one taken from close-in below, and one from some distance and above to one side. You seem to see something of great import in the juxtaposition, though of course faces hold slightly differing aspects from differing angles, at different degrees of focus and crispness of reproduction. Doubtless you imagine these photographs to be of different persons....

"The most common of human follies is to believe passionately in the palpably untrue. It is the chief occupation of mankind."

[Name removed]

259. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

261. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[k-robjoe]

271. Different views

You´re position is that it was probably not the intention to hit on the first floor.

Another position is that it´s not possible to hit the first floor, coming in at that speed and that angle, unless you have a strong intent to hit just there.

I´ve posted earlier a quote from an experienced pilot saying that in order to hit as low as that, the pilot would have to push forward with all his might. ( This is due to the ground effect. )

I´ve also posted a quote from another experienced pilot, Russ Wittenberg, about how difficult the turn manouvre was.

( Don´t have the time to track down these quotes right now. It´s more exiting to catch up on what´s new than to fill in a "passer by"(?) on what we´ve allready been through, if you know what I mean...)

[The Magistrate]

275. Then Think About It, Mr. Joe

A pilot attempting to go over the outer wall and strike the inner wall opposite would also be pushing down hard on the stick, and particularly so at the last moment, as he would want some dip to the path of the machine after passing the outer wall. A very slight miscalculation in one direction of starting point and angle in an attempt to do that would produce precisely the result that occured, just as a very slight miscalculation of those factors in the other direction could have led to the machine passing over the building altogether.

That the turn was difficult no one with any knowledge of aeronautics disputes. But the fact of difficulty does not come near proving a poor or unskilled pilot could not have done it in that instance. So long as what was done with the controls did not actually push the machine beyond its envelope, it would not fall out of the sky, and that would be so whatever the degree of skill in the hands on the controls. When fortune runs well, no observer can seperate it from skill; that is a difference that can only be determined from repeated trial, since fortune, by its nature, will not always run well.

[k-robjoe]

280. I´m sorry

but your theory that the intent was to hit the inner wall opposite, but then a very slight miscalculation made it the first floor, does not fit with the facts.

Here I ought to dig up the pic from over the Naval Annex, and some other stuff related to the final approach path.

About the turn : "push the machine beyond it´s envelope" - This is exactly what Russ Wittenberg was talking about, saying that an unskilled pilot could never have been able to do that turn because he would go into a "high speed stall".

[The Magistrate]

291. But It Did Not Exceed The Envelope, Sir

Had it done so, the machine would in fact have stalled out, and crashed down pretty near where the turn was made. The "any landing you can walk away from is a good one" pronciple applies: any steep turn that actually does not stall out the machine is well enough executed, and it makes no difference what the level of skill enjoyed by the pilot was. The proof is in the continued provision of sufficient lift by the wings.

You may dig up all you like about the final path of the flight, but it is unlikely any of it will disprove the suggested attempt and error. There is wide disagreement about many details, understandable in a sudden and strange event unlooked for by the witnesses, and the contents of the pilot's mind are beyond definitive recovery.

[k-robjoe]

295. >"The proof

is in the continued..."

The proof of what? That it didn´t go into a stall? Yes. That it was Hanjour behind the wheel? No, ofcourse not. What Russ Wittenberg is saying is that Hanjour could not have done it.

I´m not going to dig up info about the approach path for you. I don´t get the motivation for it when I see that the door is closed.

[The Magistrate]

301. Mr. Wittenberg Does Not Know That, Sir

Mr. Wittenberg knows that the manuover would be a difficult one for a novice pilot to pull off, but that is a good deal short of establishing as a fact that a particular novice pilot in a particular instance could not have pulled it off. Anyone who shoots dice often will happily assure you that it is vanishingly unlikely anyone will roll snake-eyes four times running, and everyone who does so assure you will have seen the thing happen at least once over years of gaming. My own inclination would be to bet Hanjour would have failed in the attempt as well, but losing that wager would not lead to cry there had been a ringer substituted....

[k-robjoe]

305. Ofcourse

I can´t in a just way evaluate what Mr.Wittenberg can or can not say about it, and neither can you.

Or what other pilots say about it. Again I ought to find back to the interview with the other pilot I mentioned.

Ofcourse you could have a person who has had very little training in shooting that would still "roll snake-eyes four times running".
It´s possible. But that would be a natural talent.

[The Magistrate]

307. Some People Have Natural Talent, Sir

Though to my knowledge, the thing does not exist at dice: persons have accused me of being able to control their fall at times, but they were sadly in error....

It does seem to me, though, that it is quite possible to justly evaluate Mr. Wittenberg's statement, without any inquiry into any possible motivations for it by way of beliefs o this particular matter. Like a medieval chronicler's statement that the King moved an army of fourty-thousands may be taken as indicating the King moved an army somewhat more sizeable than usual, his statement may be taken as indicating the manouver, in an experienced pilot's view, was damned difficult, which it was, and he indulged in a bit of hyperbole to drive home that point. But it is not possible to use that statement, or even other similar statements, as the foundation for a claim the thing was not in fact done by an inexperienced pilot, which some here, and their ilk in other places, have attempted to do, working along the line that if it were "impossible" for an inexperienced pilot, then it must have been done by an experienced on provided by CIA contract, or achieved by remote control, or not have occured at all, or what have you. This is a very faulty method for inquiring into any matter, and can never produce sound and convincing arguements: these cannot be had by commencing with a conclusion and casting about afterwards for straws that might shore it up.

[k-robjoe]

310. Dice

I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about shooting with a gun. That would have made more sense. Like you say : With dice, there is no skill involved.

Some people do have natural talent. But Hani Hanjour in an airplane was quite the opposite.

You are also commencing with a conclusion. And you haven´t even studied the facts. I had studied the more basic facts about 911 for quite some time before I came around to have a closer look at what happened at the Pentagon. So it is a little funny to hear from someone who hasn´t studied the facts, that I draw my conclusion on the statement from Russ Wittenberg. You have tons to learn.

[The Magistrate]

311. One Of My Few Remaining Joys In Life, Sir

Is having my redoubtable ignorance pointed out to me....

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

279. You Really Are Not Very Good At This, Fellow

Once again, you indulge in your penchant for argument by distraction. The point being engaged here is the impact on the building, and the actions of the pilot and airplane. Mr. Hoe has raised the point that there must have been some forward pressure on the stick for a point of impact so low, and my response was that an intention to strike within the ring of the structure, where far more harm would have been done, would also have required much forward pressure on the stick at the last moment, and that a miscalculation in such an effort stands as an excellent explaination for the actual point of impact. You do not engage that point at all, but instead seek to distract by a happy jaunt into video captures. But even here, you do not supply anything beyond squid's ink. You dismiss what is common knowledge about such matters, and do not say what is so strikingly different in your own eyes about these various images. You evidently prefer to imagine elaborate games of doubles and substitutions and what-not that crowd the pages of cheap thriller fictions, but can seldom be found in the pages of history.

"If you are caught or killed, the Secretary will dis-avow any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self-destruct in ten seconds. Good luck, Jim!"

[seatnineb]

290. Is that the best you got to offer Maggy..

It does not suprise me........

How your eloquent words are no match for the squid's ink provided........

AS for the point of impact........

Yes I agree with you........it may well be the reason....

.....but .........so what?

.....because it proves that Hanjour was indeed the unskilled pilot that we have all been told.......

I just find it funny how you have gone to great lengths to try
and prove that that is the case.

[The Magistrate]

302. In Short, Mr. Seat

You are not going to provide any account of strikes your eyes so glaringly about these pictures you keep trotting out...?

[seatnineb]

308. I know I have you wrattled.......

..........when you make basic grammar mistakes such as these
provide any account of strikes your eyes .....

Care to try saying that again , Maggy......

[The Magistrate]

309. "Wrattled", Dear Heart?

The word is unfamiliar to me....

Revolution, n.: In politics, an abrupt change in the form of mis-government."

[seatnineb]

315. For once you got something right..................Maggy o'dearest.....

.....and post 120 on this thread still awaits your response........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=28710&mesg_id=30678&page=

[Name removed]

284. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

286. As You Wish, Ma'am

The fellow's method of debate, and the content of his argument and views, is fairly represented in my comments above. My small efforts in the exchange above deal with particular matters at issue directly, and you know that. Others may wish to compare your extracts with his conduct, and can draw their own conclusions without any direction from me....

[DulceDecorum]

288. RH used to attempt to talk like that,

but he never did get to sound like he had swallowed a dictionary.
Too much of a bludger, 'e was. Not a conch like some.

So what's a figjam like you doing here?
Apart from changing the suject from issues to personal jabs, that is?

[Name removed]

294. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

318. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

319. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Doe II]

67. A guess

Maybe the war games could have served to create confusion ...


I quote Paul Thompson's timeline:

9:00
"Northern Vigilance is called off. As the Toronto Star reports, "Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject', is purged from the (radar) screens." (NORAD, 9/9/01; Toronto Star, 9/12/01) Therefore, many minutes into the real 9/11 attack, there may have been false radar blips causing confusion. Additional details, such as whose radar screens had false blips, or from when to when, are unknown.

[LARED]

74. So let me see if I understand

For about 15 minutes. The fifteen minutes before the second plan hit the WTC. 15 minutes where hardly anyone understood the full scope of what was happening, there was a few "injected" radar blips in an unknown area of the continent out of something like 4000+ planes in the sky. And you think this caused enough confusion to hinder a response to 9/11.

You really believe that?

[k-robjoe]

81. Phantom flights

This thing about injected blips, and about the company Ptech, is developing all the time now it seems :

"FTW readers are aware that on the morning of 9/11 NORAD was engaged in multiple war games which drew fighter jets away from the doomed airliners, and polluted air traffic control screens with false information from the exercises. One of those injected blips was the so-called "phantom Flight 11," which appeared and persisted on control screens after the war games had been aborted. That would require exactly the kind of technology that Ptech (with whom Singh did business) and its partner Mitre had been providing to each of the three agencies involved: the FAA, NORAD, and - most significantly for Dick Cheney that morning - the Secret Service. In other words, one of the most central arguments in the Rubicon's case has just been independently validated. (See Part II)"

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1_summary.shtml

[LARED]

85. About a year ago did some extensive research regarding

the so called multiple war games using Lexus Nexus and some other data bases not typically available to the public. What I found can be summed up as as there was at least one simulation, maybe two, and they were called off as soon as people figure out what was going on in New York. I saw no indication that military aircraft were unavailable or there was any confusion that lasted more than a few minutes.

What I have now discovered is that while FTW reader are aware that NORAD was engaged in multiple war games which drew fighter jets away from the doomed airliners, and polluted air traffic control screens with false information from the exercises none of it was found in any thing I found.

Interestingly, FTW does not provide any substantiation of these allegations.

[DulceDecorum]

100. You almost never

see anything that we see.

[k-robjoe]

165. Major Don Arias

Seems like Ruppert got some of his info talking to Major Don Arias :

"We know multiple Air Force war games were running on the morning of 9/11, as documented extensively in the mainstream press. 16 What Crossing the Rubicon has documented conclusively is that there was a live-fly drill taking place on 9/11 titled Vigilant Warrior. Richard Clarke disclosed the name of this drill on page 4 of his book, but it was Major Don Arias of NORAD who confirmed the definition of the title "Warrior" to Mike Ruppert via email.

Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored FTX, or field training exercise (live-fly). 17

That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11. Coincidence?" (...)

"The most important revelation made about the 9/11 war games comes again from Major Don Arias of NORAD. With multiple war games running, there had to be someone coordinating them.

"Yes, there is an exercise maestro," said Don Arias in a phone interview. 26

So who was the maestro?"

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

( And ofcourse : "(...) when we consider the warnings that had flooded U.S. Intelligence prior to 9/11, indicating that terrorists were planning to hijack aircraft and crash them into American targets on the ground during the week of September 9th, 2001. 25 With that type of information, who in their right mind would then schedule war games that would leave New York and Washington D.C. completely undefended?" ( Same place ) )

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tngledwebb]

169. Wrong summary. Try to get the big picture. One version might be:

War games allowed officially approved defense stand-downs which gave cover to how the various bombings were carried out. Civilian ATC, civilian pilots, NORAD, airlines, etc, HAD be kept in the dark while military had different levels of access. Only key insiders knew the whole story. Mass confusion on this scale allowed the perps:

To posit flight paths of 'real' planes and/or obscure doppelgangers or decoys- especially w/transponders off. Actual planes, flight paths, radar or other communications would have been verifiable, or not verifiable, under SOP- but not during war games.

But all of this was PRIMARILY needed to ensure credibility for total WTC collapses, since only big airplanes could feasibly have caused such explosions and fires (and feasibly escaped US radar and other defensive measures, because a., they weren't expected and b., we reluctant to shoot at planes with innocent civilians until we were sure of the dangers, and c. 'Yes sir, in answer to your question, we obviously badly miscalculated there, but next time we will have to shoot 'em down, in fact, now that you bring it up, well, that's sort of how it happened in Pennsylvania..' etc. )

But why not use REAL planes, even with real passengers? Because real planes and passengers are traceable, and planes are not fool-proof weapons in themselves, ie would NOT be guaranteed to disappear entirely inside the walls of the WTC or Pentagon upon impact. And they can be very expensive- especially that real passenger/victim component.

The wars games also give plausible deniabilty to the perps if they got caught. All mistakes were understandable, any mistakes were because of war games, the terrorists got thru because of war games....etc.

Etc- put your additional theories here...

[LARED]

180. Mass confusion on this scale ?????????

Really? Is there any evidence from anyone stating there was mass confusion?" Anyone?

[Abe Linkman]

181. Some people are STILL confused. Others are just "confused".

"wink wink"

[John Doe II]

175. Just for a start

Well, just for a start, yes I do think that this created additional confusion and yes I do think theses 15 minutes could have been important.
But I really wonder why doesn't the Independent Commission has absoluetly nothing to say about this?! Why? Shouldn't it be clarified if the air defense worked slower due to this....?

And please explain me why there have been up to eleven airplanes considered as hijack (see the thread)? I'd love to know that. And I'd love to know the flight numbers. And can you please explain me why the Commission once again doesn't bother about elaborating on this problem?
So, LARED, how come theses planes have been considered hijacked?

[John Doe II]

65. Hani Hanjour

Certainly you're right, LARED, that Hanjour didn't neccessarily might have intended to hit exactly the ground level. But on the other hand he CERTAINLY had to bother not to hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon. That really would have been too bad.
So here's the big question:
Why did Hani not attack the Pentagon which is not a really small building by flying nose down directly into it instead of doing his famous 330° turn? Why did he run the risk of failing to fulfill his mission? There is absolutely no advantage of the turn otherwise please tell me!


And here some evaluation of Hani's piloting skills:

“Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his
flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills
so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.”
(New York Times, 5/4/02)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html

Peggy Chevrette, JetTech manager:
I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html


Marilyn Ladner, vice president of Pan Am International Flight Academy in Phoenix:
There was no suspicion as far as evildoing. It was more of a very typical instructional concern
that 'you really shouldn't be in the air.’
(New York Times, 5/4/02)


A former employee of the school:
I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon.
He could not fly at all.
(New York Times, 5/4/02)


And here is the really interesting way how Hani got his licence:

“Chevrette said she was surprised when the FAA official suggested the school might consider getting a translator to help Hanjour.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html

Peggy Chevrette: He offered a translator.
Of course, I brought up the fact that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently
before they even get their license.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html

“Chevrette said Hanjour's English was so poor that it took him five hours to complete a section of a mock pilot's oral exam that is supposed to last just a couple of hours.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html


“Federal Aviation Administration records show he obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999,
but how and where he did so remains a lingering question
that FAA officials refuse to discuss.”
(Cape Cod Times, 10/21/01)


Oh, yes, Hani was a really lucky guy ...

[LARED]

68. Re; Hani Hanjour

Why did Hani not attack the Pentagon which is not a really small building by flying nose down directly into it instead of doing his famous 330° turn?

Perhaps that was his intent, but his limited skills caused him to try again. Perhaps his intent was to turn and crash into the upper section. The point is no one knows where he intended to crash.

Why did he run the risk of failing to fulfill his mission? There is absolutely no advantage of the turn otherwise.....

This is no reason to believe the risk was increased by either scenario. That is pure speculation on your part. In fact you could argue that a nose dive into the pentagon is a pretty difficult stunt to pull off perfectly. Maybe Hani took the lower risk of a broadside impact because to him it was a lower risk. Again no one knows his mind at the time. It's all speculation based on no evidence at all.

Also it should be noted that Hani's flying skills, or lack there of, are not so easily put to rest. From your link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html

The FAA's Brown said Anthony was taking some of his own training at JetTech in January 2001 and coincidentally sat in the same classroom with Hanjour for one course. But she said Anthony didn't note any major language problems.

Agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.

That instructor, who also is a pilot for a U.S. airline, told AP that he told authorities that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good."

The instructor said he has passed an FBI polygraph exam and is not under investigation.

Whatever his skills were it should be remembered his job was to crash the plane not make a perfect landing or take off. The skills required to fly once in the air are skills that even a struggling pilot should easily manage.

[Abe Linkman]

70. Pure speculation & 1 more reason why if you accept a phony premise,

then you open yourself up to having to deal with malarky.

Of course, part of the legend set up for Hani was that he be fully licensed as a pilot, so that the public would accept the lie about him taking over and piloting an airliner on 9/11.

Now, here's "la red" with more of the kind of pure speculation that sincere people here have to waste time fooling with in order to protect the innocent visitors who don't know very much about 9/11.

"LA Red" says:

"Whatever his skills were it should be remembered his job was to crash the plane not make a perfect landing or take off."

Malarky, based on less than pure speculation, because it has NEVER been proven that HANI Hanjour (or anyone else) flew a B757 that crashed at the Pentagon. So, ANY speculation about what "his job" was, is BS.

Partisans promote false, unproven premises, because once you accept a premise, then what follows can be arguably only a difference of opinion, and theirs will be seen by many people as being reasonable...especially if they only seem to be echoing what "authorities" say.

[LARED]

71. AA, never stop being you

because it has NEVER been proven that HANI Hanjour (or anyone else) flew a B757 that crashed at the Pentagon

AA, if you really believe that, it is pointless to discuss 9/11 with you.

[Abe Linkman]

73. It is pointless for you to use phony arguments about 9/11.

You can't get away with it because we won't let you.

[LARED]

76. Speaking of arguments. you should try to develop one

based on the evidence rather than wishful thinking.

[meppie-meppie not]

183. the official line is that Hani Hanjour was the pilot of 77 when it "hit"

the pentagon. On page 238-239 of the 9/11 Commission Report it lists all of the hijackers photos and which flight they were each on and it stipulates HH as the pilot of 77.

[John Doe II]

75. Hani's luck

Why did the FAA suggest that Hani could have a translator although this was against the rules?
Why does the FAA not want to discuss how Hani obtained his pilot licence?

And please explain me why a straight forward nosedive into a building of the size of the Pentagon shouldn't be clearly less complicated than a 330° spiral? Remember what controller O'Brien thought seeing the blimp on her screen:

At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
(ABC, 10/24/01)

Well, this turn certainly doesn't seem a simple task for somebody who never had flown a Boeing....

[AZCat]

77. I don't think I read that the same way as you

The O'Brien quote doesn't IMHO call the turn complicated (one that would require a skilled pilot) but rather dangerous. A skilled pilot would know not to fly an aircraft outside its design envelope (at least if that pilot wanted to survive). The O'Brien quote to me reads that the ATCs present recognized this and ruled out the plane as a normal 757 because the behavior was dangerous, not because it was difficult (or impossible), and they didn't expect that sort of behavior from a pilot of a 757.

[John Doe II]

159. The turn

Well, why did Hani go for something dangerous?
And I think a 330° turn from 7,000 feet at maximum speed (btw a speed the plane is not all constructed for at this low altitude) and approaching the intended target in a perfect line. This implies three great risks:

You simply miscalculat the turn especially as it is the first time in your life you're flying a Boeing 757.

Just flying above ground level you suddenly face an obstacle in the way.

How does the plane react to maximum speed and a 330°? Can you control the direction? How difficult is it to fly a plane at 520 mph just above ground level?

[Old and In the Way]

232. Try setting that flight up in a Flight Simulator.

I did. 7000 ft, cruise speed, 300 degree turn into the Pentagon. I stressed the airframe a dozen times before figuring out the right mix of throttle/airbrakes/banking to even get a doable approach on the Pentagon. Granted, it's only a simulator (albeit set to the most realistic settings)...but the point is, how could Hanjour figure all this out on his one and only attempt?

[AZCat]

233. You did?

I've been waiting for someone to do this! Which simulator were you using - one of the Microsoft versions?

Is it possible that Hanjour was ticking along slower than cruise speed? I know there are reports of the engines spooling up on the approach to the Pentagon, but it takes a while to get the mass moving.

It would also be nice to know what the simulator's criteria for stressing the airframe is - after all, Hanjour might have stressed it (but not critically). I doubt there would be any way to tell just by examining the wreckage, you'd need the flight data recorders.

Hanjour might just have been lucky. :shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

235. Well, when you reach that moment of failure, it stops flying.

MSFS2002 And the plane was a 767. No 757 in their standard array of planes...you could download it from the net, though.

So there's no telling how the plane would act after that threshold is reached on the simulator. I would assume the plane becomes completely unresponive/unflyable at that point. Like I said, it is possible to make it crash at the Pentagon....but it took me about 20 attempts to get it close to the final scenario.

[LARED]

78. Luck may have had something to do with it

Why does the FAA not want to discuss how Hani obtained his pilot licence?

Perhaps because they gave a license to someone that was not qualified might be a reason.

You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

So what they saw was someone flying a 757 in an unsafe manner. Also please note that they identified the plane as a 757 not a military plane. It is certainly possible the Hani was pulling some unsafe maneuvers in an attempt to hit his target. Again his job was to crash the plane not provide an uneventful flight for his passengers.

Regarding the nose dive being less risky. I have no clue how its difficultly compares to a 330 degree turn to line up the aircraft. I do know that once in a nose dive your ability to maneuver is limited. Again we do not know the extent of his skills other than they were not great or if the Pentagon was the preplanned target. We only know the outcome.

[AZCat]

82. Unusual attitudes are a serious problem

I remember a seminar I was at quite a while back ('95 or '96) where that was the topic. Computers were just beginning to be useful for solving CFDs and a professor from Rice was lecturing about an analysis of the F-16 at unusual attitudes (80+degrees pitch). He was able to get about 40,000 nodes for the CFD but the model of the aircraft was greatly simplified. It was still enough for him to validate the model regarding the efficacy of the control surfaces (NASA had collected a bunch of data), but he had not yet done any testing of alternative solutions - he was only interested in discovering why the control surfaces were ineffective in those states.

I don't know about 757 (or any other commercial jets) but I found this to be an interesting seminar and thought you might like to know.

[LARED]

83. Yes, it is interesting

It helps point out that these sort of things are rarely as simple or well understood as it seems on the surface.

[demodewd]

107. Lared=speculating person

You are speculating just like the rest of us. Don't deceive yourself.

[LARED]

163. There is of course a certain amount of speculation on my part

on many of the details surrounding 9/11. I've never said otherwise.

What is not speculation is the flight 77 hit the pentagon. There is far too much objective evidence to call it speculation.

This is the difference between you and me. I'm objective, meaning facts are facts and reality defines the world. No amount of speculation is going to change the fact that flight 77 impacted the pentagon. There were no missiles, or truck bomb, or secret energy devices.

You're more speculative; meaning you live in a world where the 9/11 investigation means nothing to you unless it fits your prejudices.

[demodewd]

174. but you state no facts

That flight 77 hit is pure speculation. You have no court admissible evidence. No photographs have been presented to the public by the Pentagon that gives definitive proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

There are no plane parts that verify. No bodies(other than the official statement). Not even a video showing a plane hitting the building. In fact the TPTB apparently have refused to display to the public those frames that would reveal the true identity of the plane. This is suppresion of evidence. Why would the Pentagon commit a crime by suppressing the one photograph that would exonerate them??????????

You just say that there were no bombs,missiles etc as if by stating this makes it a fact. Statements aren't facts. Government statements are not facts! As much as you wish and apparently believe them to be.

[Democrat Dragon]

322. Any bodies present would have been reduced to ashes

Which brings up the question "How the hell did they get DNA samples from the site?"

Some of the people who believe it really was a plane, say tehat the the palne burned, melted,and shredded, which would creamte anyone in thh plane. Now, how do you get DNA from ashes?

[MercutioATC]

323. Not "ashes", bone.

Modern crematoria operate at between 800 and 1000 degrees celcius (1472-1832 degrees Fahrenheit). Left behind are ash and pieces of bone.

Here's how to get DNA samples from burned bone:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:APl6IZB9nCAJ:www.erin.utoronto.ca/~eparra/profile/PDF%2520files/Ye%2520et%2520al.,%25202004.pdf+dna+extraction+from+burned+bone&hl=en


Evidence that DNA can be extracted from cremated remains:

http://www.nationalalliance.org/korea/mutta.htm

[tngledwebb]

170. Don't know if that is exactly the right word.

n/t

[meppie-meppie not]

201. I would have to agree that we are all, no matter the position we take,

speculating at best. If a fully funded investigation that had full subpoena powers were conducted it would sure help to ferret out some answers. So much is shrouded in secrecy and that fuels the fires that much more! :(

[John Doe II]

158. Agreed and disagreed

Why does the FAA not want to discuss how Hani obtained his pilot licence?

Perhaps because they gave a license to someone that was not qualified might be a reason.

Yeah, I agree on that but I do really wonder why the Independent Commission doesn't bother about figuring out how Hani got his licence. Should be interesting, shouldn't it!?
Moreover: You forget to add that Hani not only had luck to obtain his licence but also that he received once again help from the FAA in the person of a translator although that was against the rules. Why? And why again does the Commission not bother about it?


So what they saw was someone flying a 757 in an unsafe manner. Also please note that they identified the plane as a 757 not a military plane. It is certainly possible the Hani was pulling some unsafe maneuvers in an attempt to hit his target. Again his job was to crash the plane not provide an uneventful flight for his passengers.

Here I have to disagree.
O'Brien does IN NO WAY identify the plane as a Boeing 757. She adds this with her post-911 knowledge.
Proof:"This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president". (ABC, 10/24/01).

Sure Hani's aim was to crash the plane. Then why the hell he goes for something that it's extremely risky?? And once again certainly less risky then a slow nosedive (the plane was at ana ltitude of 7.000 feet when they started the turn. It was a day of perfect visibility ...)

[John Doe II]

162. Military plane

Here is what another controller thought about the unidentified blimp:

BROKAW: What did you think? It was a military flight of some kind when you saw it?

Mr. LEWIS: I thought it was a military flight. I thought that Langley had scrambled some fighters and maybe one of them got up there.

BROKAW: It was really moving fast.

Mr. LEWIS: It was moving very fast, like a military aircraft might move at a low altitude.
(NBC, 9/11/02)

[MercutioATC]

192. I'll attempt to explain that controller statement.

A commercial airliner usually has passengers in the back. To avoid injuries, it makes shallow turns. It's also restricted to operate below 250 knots below 10,000 feet.


A military plane usually doesn't have to worry about passengers and makes quicker turns (very fast, at times). There are also scenarios (like an intercept) where they're not restricted to 250 knots below 10,000 feet.


If we see a plane making quick turns and exceeding 250 knots below 10,000 feet, we'd naturally assume it was military. However, it could just as easily be a civilian plane breaking the rules.

[John Doe II]

262. FAA and Hani

Still I very much like know:


Why did the FAA suggest that Hani could have a translator although this was against the rules?
Why does the FAA not want to discuss how Hani obtained his pilot licence?

And anybody any idea why the Commission Report doesn't bother to answer theses questions....?

[gbwarming]

263. It not against the rules to have a translator in a flight school. nt

[John Doe II]

265. Read post 65! n/t

[gbwarming]

266. I've read #65.

On Edit:
Mr. Doe, I'm not sure what your issue is here. The FAA inspector may, or may not, have suggested that the school provide a translator to help Hanjour. In either case, I can find no reason the school cannot provide a translator for use in the classroom. Hanjour was a long ways from the 1500 or so hours required to take the ATP exam and there's no evidence the FAA inspector suggested that he should recieve help on any FAA exam.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html
...
The FAA's Brown said Anthony was taking some of his own training at JetTech in January 2001 and coincidentally sat in the same classroom with Hanjour for one course. But she said Anthony didn't note any major language problems.

Chevrette, the flight school manager, said she told Anthony she believed Hanjour could not write or speak English fluently as required to get a U.S. commercial pilot's license.

"The thing that really concerned me was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English," Chevrette said.
...
There was no answer this week at Anthony's home phone and FAA officials said he was out of town and unavailable to be interviewed. But Brown, the FAA spokeswoman, said Anthony did not observe any serious language problems and did not suggest a translator for Hanjour.

[John Doe II]

289. The issue

is very simple:
The FAA refuses to discuss how Hani obtained his licence in 1999.
This is rather strange and one would imagine the Independent Commission to investigate. Especially if you read that

managers at this Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA , not because they feared he was a terrorist but because his English and flying skills were so bad, they told The Associated Press, they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.
(CBS, 5/10/02)


Chevrette, the flight school manager, said she told Anthony she believed Hanjour could not write or speak English fluently as required to get a U.S. commercial pilot's license.
(AP, 5/10/02)


University of Arizona records show he failed his English classes with a .26 grade point average. Other Arizona flight schools he attended also questioned his abilities.
(CBS, 5/10/02)

And the FAA inspector was not concerned:

"The thing that really concerned me was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English," Chevrette said.
Chevrette said she was surprised when the FAA official suggested the school might consider getting a translator to help Hanjour.
(AP, 5/10/02)


So, what we've got here are serious concerns that Hani didn't obtain his licence legally (he not only lacked according to some the skills but according to many sources he lacked simply any English knowledge) and we have a very helpful FAA who offers a translator although Hani had his licence and therefore was required to have a certain knowledge of English.
I don't say the FAA is involved here in the same manner as the INS for the visa but certainly it is very bizarre that apparently the Independent Commission didn't consider this a topic worth investigating.

[The Magistrate]

223. One Small Point, Mr. Doe

You seem to be suggesting the pilot hijacker ought to have dived more or less straight down to strike the interior of the Pentagon. Vertical or near vertical dives are seriously not recommended for these machines: at the speeds such would achieve, they first buffet uncontrollably, and then come apart.

[DulceDecorum]

283. IF Hani had dived that plane

into the center coutyard, he would have destroyed the Pentagon once and for all. No firetruck could have entered and the place would have been reduced to cinders.

If the plane came apart on the way down,
SO WHAT!?!
He was SUPPOSED to fricking destroy the plane in the first place
and he wasn't trying to come out of it alive.

The pieces of plane would have spread out
and maybe, just maybe,
some of them might even have messed up that golfing green that surrounds the place.

And how came that bigmouth badass Barby the Harpy
did not organize some sort of revolt on that plane
just like we hear happened on Flight 93?

They had more than enough time
and that Hani Hanjour was about as physically impressive as Don Knotts.

[The Magistrate]

285. Think A Little, Ma'am

When an airplane breaks up in the air, the pieces do not fall straight down, nor do they fall at the same speed as the intact machine dives. Major elements like wing structures can fall quite far from the point of rupture, as their broad surfaces pick up resistance from the air. The strike would have only a small fraction of the kinetic energy delivered by the intact machine at high speed, and a greatly lessened incenmdiary effect as well.

[DulceDecorum]

287. Yeah, so?

The Pentagon roof was an EXCELLENT target.

Hundreds of firefighters are still working to extinguish the blaze in the Pentagon roof. Fire officials said the construction of the Pentagon has contributed to this "very stubborn blaze." The Pentagon's roof consists of a layer of masonry, topped by wood, topped by slate. The officials said the fire has been hard to control because it has ignited the wood and is traveling between the concrete and slate layers. Firefighters are bringing in experts and special equipment to deal with the blaze.
http://www.pentagon.mil/news/Sep2001/n09122001_200109122.html

The terrorist-controlled jet that crashed into the Pentagon penetrated the second story of the Pentagon on September 11 and dumped 20,000 gallons of jet fuel onto the roof. The fuel ignited and burned about 50,000 square feet of roof, with additional structural damage. The inner three "rings" of the Pentagon have coal-tar-pitch built-up roof systems, and Koppers' donation will allow contractors to match the new roof to the original.
http://www.koppers.com/htm/Press_PR020625.html
http://www.house.gov/smbiz/democrats/PressReleases/Pr010702.htm

That roof fire kept going so long,
it embarassed the Energizer Bunny.

Hani really should have aimed for the center courtyard and the damn roof.
But then again, he was a kinder, gentler type of terrorist
and didn't relly want to kill anyone.
So he smacked into the empty Wedge,
making sure not to stay off the lawn
and avoid damaging the facade very much.

[The Magistrate]

303. Again, Ma'am

Had the machine been broken up in the air, it might well have missed the place entirely, or done very little damage to it, owing to the dispersal of the fragments.

[DulceDecorum]

317. Shoulda, coulda, dinna.

At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn.
Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

But hey,
the rightwingnuts got their war on, just the same.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (1-25-05), Pentagon official David Chu, in a mockery of the contribution of veterans, defended a new round of cuts by ironically describing funding for programs like veterans' education and job training, health care, pensions, VA housing and the like as "hurtful" to national security.
<snip>
Slow spending growth isn't even the biggest immediate problem for vets. In the last two years, Bush ordered the closing of several VA hospitals in different parts of the country, pushing waiting lists for medical services for veterans as high as six months for about 230,000 vets. These closings followed in the wake of the congressional Republican's concerted drive in 2003 to cut $15 billion from VA spending over the next ten years.
<snip>
In fact the Republicans are so desperate to cut veterans' benefits they have started attacking fellow Republicans who want to preserve current benefit levels. The Wall Street Journal reports that "the House Republican leadership took the unusual step of stripping New Jersey Rep. Christopher Smith of his chairmanship of the Veterans Affairs Committee" for pushing "so aggressively for veterans benefits that he at times threatened to oppose their spending plans – and President Bush's – unless more retiree benefits were included."
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=437&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Only a left leaning unpatriotic liberal
would go against the mANNdate of Dubya
or question the Offal Version of September 11,
or its aftermath.

Hani did as he was told.
The Magistrate can rest his case.

[DulceDecorum]

99. Aircraft Fire Technology indicates that

a lot of people within that building
should have suffered from the effects of the fumes from the burning aircraft.
Yet not one single person appears to have had that problem.

Even the FIREFIGHTERS did not bother to don the proper ARFF gear before making like an extra on the Jerry Springer Show.
But then again,
perhaps the plane was an extra too.


http://www.vdfp.state.va.us/ARFFphotos.htm

In 1998, VDFP redefined the Virginia Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting program. Our state-of the art trainer is a computer controlled system that simulates realistic aircraft fire and emergency scenarios. The mobile unit travels throughout the state delivering on-site live fire training. Prior to the ARFF program, localities had to routinely send aircraft firefighters out of state to receive their mandatory training.
http://www.vdfp.state.va.us/arff.htm

[gbwarming]

16. 3 of the hijacker pilots had commercial, multi engine ratings

The only one that didn't was the 93 pilot that crashed short of the target. Commercial multiengine ratings require at least 250 hours of toal flight time covering specific types of operation. Many have argued that these were poor pilots, but they were not rank beginners.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/14cfr61.129.htm
(b) For an airplane multiengine rating. Except as provided in
paragraph (i) of this section, a person who applies for a commercial
pilot certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating
must log at least 250 hours of flight time as a pilot that consists of
at least:
(1) 100 hours in powered aircraft, of which 50 hours must be in
airplanes.
(2) 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time, which includes at
least--
(i) 50 hours in airplanes; and
(ii) 50 hours in cross-country flight of which at least 10 hours
must be in airplanes.
(3) 20 hours of training on the areas of operation listed in
Sec. 61.127(b)(2) of this part that includes at least--
(i) 10 hours of instrument training of which at least 5 hours must
be in a multiengine airplane;
(ii) 10 hours of training in a multiengine airplane that has a
retractable landing gear, flaps, and controllable pitch propellers, or
is turbine-powered, or for an applicant seeking a multiengine seaplane
rating, 10 hours of training in a multiengine seaplane that has flaps
and a controllable pitch propeller;
(iii) One cross-country flight of at least 2 hours in a multiengine
airplane in day VFR conditions, consisting of a total straight-line
distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of
departure;
(iv) One cross-country flight of at least 2 hours in a multiengine
airplane in night VFR conditions, consisting of a total straight-line
distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of
departure; and
(v) 3 hours in a multiengine airplane in preparation for the
practical test within the 60-day period preceding the date of the test.
(4) 10 hours of solo flight time in a multiengine airplane or 10
hours of flight time performing the duties of pilot in command in a
multiengine airplane with an authorized instructor (either of which may
be credited towards the flight time requirement in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section), on the areas of operation listed in Sec. 61.127(b)(2) of
this part that includes at least--
(i) One cross-country flight of not less than 300 nautical miles
total distance with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which
is a straight-line distance of at least 250 nautical miles from the
original departure point. However, if this requirement is being met in
Hawaii, the longest segment need only have a straight-line distance of
at least 150 nautical miles; and
(ii) 5 hours in night VFR conditions with 10 takeoffs and 10
landings (with each landing involving a flight with a traffic pattern)
at an airport with an operating control tower.


http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/911comm-ss4.pdf

[demodewd]

17. legends

Creating "legends" would involve this type of lead-up to 9-11.

[gbwarming]

29. "Nothing particularly bad about their flying, but nothing remarkable eithe

What is your claim dewd?

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/11_01/11_01_hijackedpilotspg20.html
...
Atta arrived at Huffman with a private pilot certificate as prerequisites for the commercial single- and multi-engine courses. Al-Shehhi had no previous training and enrolled in the ab initio program. Dekkers said both students were hard and serious workers, arriving for instruction on July 3 last year and for the most part continuously training until that December 21.

“They both left just after New Years this year,” he said. “As students go, they were both average in their exams and flying. Nothing particularly wrong, but not excellent either.
...
It was last December when Atta and Al-Shehhi took six hours of Boeing 727 simulator training from George. “We advertise our jet introduction course in various flight-training magazines, so there wasn’t anything noteworthy when they inquired about it,” he said. The company offers 30 hr of ground school on the Embraer 145 and 12 hr of instruction in a Boeing 727 full-motion simulator. George said the classroom portion exposes students to the glass cockpit and the simulator to flying high-performance aircraft.
...
They showed up as planned on December 29 last year and worked in the simulator for two days, opting at the last minute to take six hours of training. “We did three hours a day split equally between the two, with one observing in the right seat while the other flew in the left,” George said. “They both had commercial pilot certificates with instrument and multi-engine ratings and approximately 350 hours of flight time. Looking back, they were average pilots for their experience level. Nothing particularly bad about their flying, but nothing remarkable either.”

[demodewd]

34. creating legends

It doesn't strike me unnusual that Atta and Al-Shehhi would be what you have so very well documented them to be. That they would take lessons and show a fair degree of efficiency would fall right into the CIA modus of creating a "legend" that makes their alleged culpability just that more convincing to the public. It's a standard CIA m.o. for false flag operations.

[gbwarming]

79. You can write off anyhting with that logic.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck that proves its a CIA false flag op.

[demodewd]

104. Quacking for the OCT

We're not talking about proof in the scientific sense. Your statements are based upon what you reason to be true. So are mine.

SOP for a false flag operation does involve setting up patsies who do certain related behaviors that could reasonably implicate them in the final criminal act.

One could also say that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it fulfills the OCT.

.

[DulceDecorum]

88. OK, pull up the Airman's FAA papers & explain why he is ALIVE

after crashing that jet.

We have pulled up and posted the FAA registered qualification of the original pilots and found that they were no great shakes and at least of them should not even have been flying.

Now you say that that the hijackers are/were properly qualified.
PROVE IT.
And then after that we will show you articles where some men claim to have been the victims of identity theft.
Feel free to reject these articles,
BUT
you must still explain how it is that some of these hijackers,
for example, Mohammed Atta,
have an uncanny ability to be in two more places at the same time,
but in totally DIFFERENT bodies.

And then,
for extra credit,
you can tell us WHY these people were signed up for CESSNA CLASS!!

[gbwarming]

90. Hey Dulce, I have a car problem you might help me with

My 2000 Toyota Echo was toalled last October but Allstate keeps sending me policies with it listed. I've been calling them to take it off, but since it's still in their database it MUST still be drivable. Maybe you could help me find it. I liked that car.

[LARED]

92. I have a better problem for DD

My ex from over 15 years ago recently got some mail for me addressed to her home. She's remarried for many many years and lives over 100 miles away.

Am I still married to her because some database thinks I am.

[DulceDecorum]

115. No more that Ted Olson

was ever married to Barby the Harpy.

[Abe Linkman]

119. "sweet pea": got an eyewitness to Ted & barb's marriage ceremony?

Can you cite just one person who claimed to have witnessed it? If so, did they indicate that Ted was intoxicated on that occasion?

[Sweet Pea]

101. LOL...

Tell Allstate to convert their database to a Government Data base and ask that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics take over management. That is the ONLY PERFECT database in existence - that I know of.

[DulceDecorum]

118. NOT ONE of the Sisters DARES pull up the FAA airman's papers

even though you pretend that they
A) exist in the first place, amd
B) demonstrate that ANY plane crashed ANYWHERE on September 11, 2001.

[AZCat]

120. You nailed it

The refusal of a few anonymous posters on the internet to rebut your claims is, in fact, validation of said claims. :eyes:

[DulceDecorum]

129. Not refusal

complete and total inability.

And the FAA Airman's registry is fair and easy game.
The links are even readily available on several threads here.

The Sisters just cannot back themselves up.
Ever.
On anything.
Why,
just look at the conniptions thay are having
trying to get everyone to forget that
they claimed that three hijacker pilots were certified Airline Transport Pilots.

Since they cannot produce any PROOF of this,
they then turn the discussion towards Toyotas and ex-wives.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[AZCat]

133. Yes, the links are available

If my memory hasn't failed me, this has been discussed before.

Why would any of us want to bring it up when you seem to ignore any prior criticism and just recycle your claims? There is no point.

[DulceDecorum]

135. YOU can't get the hijacker FAA records.

No point talking to you about them.

[AZCat]

136. Why bring it up if you claim there's no point in discussing it? n/t

[DulceDecorum]

138. BRING IT, and we will discuss it.

Now run along down to the FAA Airman Registry
and fetch the hijacker ATP records.

[AZCat]

142. In this case I refer you to your post #88

From post #88 (by DulceDecorum):
We have pulled up and posted the FAA registered qualification of the original pilots and found that they were no great shakes and at least of them should not even have been flying.

Now you say that that the hijackers are/were properly qualified.
PROVE IT.
</quote>

This post was in response to #16 by gbwarming titled, "3 of the hijacker pilots had commercial, multi engine ratings":
The only one that didn't was the 93 pilot that crashed short of the target. Commercial multiengine ratings require at least 250 hours of toal flight time covering specific types of operation. Many have argued that these were poor pilots, but they were not rank beginners.
</quote>



Please note that a Commercial license does not equal an Air Transport Pilot's license (ATP). There was no claim made of ATP licenses.

If you want the records for the four hijackers, go get them yourself - I'm not your errand boy.

[DulceDecorum]

144. I'm not your errand boy.

And neither,
old chap,
am I.

So, we end the stand off.
DulceDecorum has pulled up
and posted the FAA qualifications of the original pilots.
The Sisters are unable to do the same for the "hijackers."
We will not bee seeing ANY evidence of FAA Commercial Pilot Certificates for ANY of those "hijacker" gentlemen.
And you can forget about the Medical Certificates as well.

(Mind you,
it is the Sisters
who claimed that three of the hijackers
had commercial, multi engine ratings.
And true to form,
it is the Sisters,
who told us to get stuffed
once we asked them to demonstrate the veracity of said claim.)

[AZCat]

148. I didn't make the claim

But if you'll take a look at post #140, it appears that gbwarming is backing up the claim he made in post #16.

[MercutioATC]

193. The accuracy of the claim HAS been verified, Dulce. (Post #140)

At least three of the hijackers had commercial ratings.

In light of Post #140, are you still disputing this?

[DulceDecorum]

225. You accept THIS as "proof?"

gbwarming posted:
http://registry.faa.gov/amquery.asp
hani saleh hanjoor
instrument/asel/amel/commercial
medical 4/99 (this would be lapsed)
MARWAN YOUSEF ALSHEHHI
Medical Date: 07/2000 (lapsed)
ASEL/AMEL/instrument (edit: commercial also)
That's two. These names are not too simple to pick correctly and the search engine is not flexible. What's the point?
Edit: also ZIAD JARRAH
asel/ instrument
medical also lapsed

Half the people here do not know what asel or amel mean.
(Airplane single-engine land certificate
and
Airplane multi-engine land certificate)
we have no Date of Issue for any of the Certs.
No addresses.

I do not think that a diligent barkeep
would pass out drinks based on this info.

[gbwarming]

226. Sorry Dulce, If it's in the database it's real. Those are your rules. nt

[DulceDecorum]

237. You left out so MUCH

that you have almost destroyed your own argument.

Why can't you
simply go to the FAA website
and pull up EVERYTHING on the hijackers' airman files
and then POST EVERYTHING you just pulled up?

Why?

[gbwarming]

238. Ok, here it is. Verbatim.

I'm really interested in hearing what you think this information means.
---------------------------

HANI SALEH HANJOOR

Address

Address is not available



Medical

Medical Class : First Medical Date: 04/1999



Certificates
1 of 1


DOI : 04/15/1999
Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):

COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
PRIVATE PRIVILEGES
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND

--------------------------------------
MOHAMED ATTA

Address

Address is not available



Medical

Medical Class : Third Medical Date: 07/2000



Certificates
1 of 1


DOI : 06/19/2001
Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):

COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
PRIVATE PRIVILEGES
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
------------------------------------
MARWAN YOUSEF ALSHEHHI

Address

Address is not available



Medical

Medical Class : Third Medical Date: 07/2000

# MUST WEAR CORRECTIVE LENSES.


Certificates
1 of 1


DOI : 06/19/2001
Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):

COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
PRIVATE PRIVILEGES
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
-------------------------------------
ZIAD JARRAH

Address

Address is not available



Medical

Medical Class : First Medical Date: 07/2000

# MUST WEAR CORRECTIVE LENSES.


Certificates
1 of 1


DOI : 07/30/2001
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Rating(s):

PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
-------------------------------------

[MercutioATC]

240. You're disagreeing with database info??????

THAT'S a change...


I thought databases were definitive "proof". What makes some government databases more believable than others to you?

[gbwarming]

140. I just pulled up H. Hanjour. Now what?

http://registry.faa.gov/amquery.asp

hani saleh hanjoor
instrument/asel/amel/commercial
medical 4/99 (this would be lapsed)



MARWAN YOUSEF ALSHEHHI
Medical Date: 07/2000 (lapsed)
ASEL/AMEL/instrument (edit: commercial also)

That's two. These names are not too simple to pick correctly and the search engine is not flexible. What's the point?

Edit: also ZIAD JARRAH
asel/ instrument
medical also lapsed

[DulceDecorum]

146. Is THAT what it said? VERBATIM?

I have my doubts.

[gbwarming]

149. Geez, I gave you the site and the names as spelled. Look it up.

edit: and no, that's not what it said verbatim. I think I extracted everything interesting except the doi, which I assume means date of issue.

[DulceDecorum]

153. We want the truth

the WHOLE truth
and nothing but the truth.

Do you really think we will be satisfied with half truths?

But at least I will give you credit for making some sort of effort.
Now,
go back to the drawing board
and come back when you have collected all the info
you can glean from that site -- about ALL the hijackers.
Ta.

[gbwarming]

155. Goodnight Dulce. I'm a little disappointed.

[gbwarming]

147. Cmon, Dulce. I got 3 hijackers here for ya. What does it mean?

[AZCat]

151. You can add Atta to your list (make sure you spell his first name right)

MOHAMED ATTA
Address
Address is not available

Medical
Medical Class : Third Medical Date: 07/2000

Certificates
1 of 1

DOI : 06/19/2001
Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):

COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
PRIVATE PRIVILEGES
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND



source
Note: You have to enter personal information in order to search the FAA airmen records.

[gbwarming]

152. Thanks. I tried several variations but must have mistyped the simplest

[AZCat]

154. I do it all the time

It's hard when you have half a dozen pages open and are switching in between them referencing various things. I manage to screw up a lot because I'll cut-and-paste the wrong thing or misspell something.

[DulceDecorum]

156. Getting warmer.....

Prior to September 11th, the FAA had airman records on hijackers Marwan Alshehhi, Mohamed Atta, Hani Hanjour, and Ziad Jarrah. Mohamed Atta filled out a medical history form on July 24, 2000. Marwan Alshehhi was issued a medical certificate on July 24, 2000. A medical record concerning Hani Hanjour dated back to 1996, while a medical record for Ziad Jarrah was issued on July 11, 2000. While the FAA had some records relating to Zacarias Moussaoui, it could not find any evidence that Moussaoui was ever issued a recreational pilot or higher-level airman certificate.

The INS also had records concerning the 19 hijackers--specifically the type of visa and the duration of the stay adjudicated by the immigration officer for each individual. INS records show that three of the 19, Salam Al Suqami, Nawaf Al Hazmi,and Hani Hanjour had overstayed their visas. According to the INS, Mohamed Atta filed an application to change his visa status from B-1 to M-1, and this was granted on July 17, 2001. The B-1 visa is issued to foreign nationals for personal travel to the United States while the M-1 visa is issued to foreign nationals to study in the United States. However, on July 19, 2001, Mr. Atta was admitted to the United States based on his then current B-1 visitor visa.
<snip>
Although no indications have been found that the FAA knew of the terrorist connections of the hijackers, the FAA did have detailed information regarding those who were pilots. The FAA maintains records of all certificated airmen--those who possess a U.S.-issued certificate, and also on all U.S. registered aircraft. According to the FAA, there are over one million airmen files, of which approximately 626,000 are pilots. Representatives of the FAA stated that the airmen file remains open until receipt of a death certificate. Each certificate contains specific medical information, flight test results, score, engine ratings, incident history, and enforcement activity. These records are kept in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma by the Department of Transportation--specifically the FAA Civil Aviation Registry--and are available to all federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/100102hill.html

[AZCat]

157. You're not going to ask for their INS records now, are you?

Because I don't think I'm capable of producing those.



On a side note - it may not matter, but I apologize for being rude earlier (the "errand boy" comment). I try to remain polite on message boards but sometimes things slip out. Regardless, it was uncalled for. We may not agree, but that doesn't mean that I can be rude.

[DulceDecorum]

117. Does the DMV STILL list the vehicle

as a viable entity?
Has it been SEEN driving along the city streets?
Do you STILL buy gasoline for it and take it in for tune-ups?
No?

Then perhaps you should consider checking out N591UA.
The solid "ghost-plane."

[MercutioATC]

123. Dulce, you keep saying that N519UA has been "seen"...

...are you ready to substiantiate this claim yet?


I'd also like to know what has happened with N519UA that equates to "buy gasoline for it and take it in for tune-ups" since 9/11? You have an inspection report that nobody else has seen?

[DulceDecorum]

126. How about

gbwarming
PROVING that he ever owned a 2000 Toyota Echo,
and then PROVING that Allstate is sending him policies.

None of you EVER produce anything other than allegations.
and none of you has EVER proved that N591UA is NOT flying.

[MercutioATC]

128. That's just silly, Dulce.

You've repeatedly claimed that N519UA has been "seen" and repeatedly declined to provide any evidence.


I haven't seen you make the claim in a while and I'm wondering if you're now ready to do what we've always asked you to do...produce some evidence...


As far as proving a negative, if I claim that I know that N519UA isn't flying because I personally shot it down with a Stinger missile, can you disprove that? (yeah, it's a thinly-veiled ruse, but I really want to see what evidence you have that this plane has ben seen since 9/11).

[DulceDecorum]

130. Go hang around O'Hare

and see it for yourself.

I still want to see PROOF that a certain Toyota once existed,
but I won't hold my breath.....

[MercutioATC]

131. That's hardly evidence.

Got a statement? A witness? A pic? Anything?


If it's still flying, it must have been inspected. Show me evidence of the inspection. With your amazing command of databases, that shouldn't be too difficult.

[DulceDecorum]

134. What will you trade me for it?

Another puff of hot air?

Get me the FAA airman records for ALL the hijackers.
Put up or shut up.

[MercutioATC]

161. This wasn't a discussion about airman records, it's about N519UA.

Please try to stick to the subject.

[DulceDecorum]

173. Who give a fig for N519UA?

It was not one of the 911 planes.

Do try not to transpose numerals when trying to be snippy.

[MercutioATC]

190. You, obviously. You keep saying that it's still flying.

Sorry, the plane has been listed on various websites as both N519UA and N591UA. N591UA is correct...no "snippiness" intended, it was an honest request.

[DulceDecorum]

221. If N519UA = N591UA

and Flight 175 = Flight 35
then what the heck REALLY happenened on September 11, 2001?

MercutioATC,
hich one of these
did ATC who "saw the planes" work?

[MercutioATC]

239. They saw UAL93 and AAL175.

[AZCat]

132. Resorting to Truth Suppression Technique #19?

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon).



Edited to fix link

[DulceDecorum]

137. Getting hijackers FAA records is IMPOSSIBLE??

After reading the article, Mr. Hopkins performed a search of FAA’s International Training Program database, which contains the names and nationalities of persons accepted for training at an FAA Academy in Oklahoma City. He sought to determine whether either Atta or Bukhari had been trained at the Academy.
While he did not find a match for “Atta,” a match did appear for the name “Bukhari.” The database indicated that an individual with that surname, and also from Saudi Arabia, was trained in Aviation Security at the FAA Academy in 1991 and 1998. Mr. Hopkins took this information to his first-level supervisor. He requested that the supervisor pass the information on to FAA Security for further inquiry as to whether the “Bukhari” in the FAA database might be a relative of the “Bukhari” identified in the Washington Post article.
http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2002/pr02_11.htm

Eight days after Mr. Hopkins made his disclosure to FAA officials, Mr. Hopkins’ first-level supervisor terminated Mr. Hopkins’ employment during his probationary period. The supervisor cited what he called Mr. Hopkins’ failure to maintain a “calm and professional approach in the completion of duties, as well as evidence of sound judgment.”
http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2001/pr01_25.htm

AZCat,
WHAT evidence have YOU produced?
The FAA Airman registry exists.
Simply run ALL the hijackers names through and post the results.
What is so tough about that?

EXPOSE the TRUTH
instead of suppressing it.
Be a man,
like Mr. Hopkins.

[AZCat]

139. I was referring to your comments in post #126...

From #126 (By DulceDecorum):
gbwarming
PROVING that he ever owned a 2000 Toyota Echo,
and then PROVING that Allstate is sending him policies.

None of you EVER produce anything other than allegations.
and none of you has EVER proved that N591UA is NOT flying
</quote> (Emphasis mine)

Asking for proof that N591UA is not flying is Truth Suppression Technique #19.

[DulceDecorum]

141. And when you ask me

to pull the passengers out of my pocket,
which Truth Suppression Technique is that?

I have told you all time and again to go
hang around the hubs of United Airlines,
especially O'Hare airport, if you wish to see N591UA.

Now you won't go there and you won't look.
Then you come whine at me for your very own Miserable Failure.

NONE of you has EVER produced ANY proof that N591UA is NOT flying.
And I dare you to.
Especially in light of this:

N591UA is Assigned
Assigned/Registered Aircraft
STATUS: Valid.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=591UA

You think that thing is rusting away in a hangar someplace?
Oh yeah?
PROVE IT.

[AZCat]

143. I have no idea what you are referring to

In your post, you state:
And when you ask me
to pull the passengers out of my pocket,
which Truth Suppression Technique is that?
</quote>

I have no idea what passengers you are referring to.


Your reliance on the FAA registration database has been discussed here, ad infinitum. I refuse to re-engage in a discussion that will not reach resolution.

Claiming that a reference to O'Hare is proof of the continued existence of N591UA is specious.

[DulceDecorum]

145. Won't look and won't provide proof.

Yup,
discussing stuff with you is gonna be mighty fruitless.

[AZCat]

150. Asking me to fly to Chicago and hang around O'Hare...

is a bit unreasonable.


In the middle of winter too... :scared:

[tngledwebb]

172. Alas, the echoes of past and present OCT'ers echo in the mind. Why?

Hey, all this global warming is a crock too, isn't it? Or is it that in that particular case you support the science that doesn't support the illegal regime? Where do you draw YOUR line?

[John Doe II]

160. Hani's licence

Just have a look at post 65 and explain me how Hani got his licence and why the FAA seems so willing to help him out ....

[spooked911]

164. Actually, my reading of your source is that only Mohamed Atta

had a commercial, multi engine rating.

And they mention Hani Hanjour in there having significant experience-- since this guy was apparently quite incompetent according to his flight instructors, it's not clear where he got an FAA rating from. This sounds like a created legend.

Certainly none of the hijackers are known to have flown commercial multi-engine jets before.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. The WTC is not an ordinary target

It can be seen from miles away, especially on a clear day. This is much different then finding a target that is a small square building.

On the other hand, the acrobatics that were required to hit the Pentagon are another matter entirely. Especially, when the first plane took a little detour to wait for Flight 93 to leave and both planes had time to land before the Pentagon was hit.

[nodictators]

6. Numerous falsehoods in article, some truths there too

None of the hijacked planes flew on instrument flight rules (IFR). They flew visually on that crystal clear morning, and broke many flight rules, such as the speed limits below 10,000 feet altitude. Also the plane that hit the Pentagon didn't pull high g-forces since he was descending and took a leisurely 3 minutes for the turn, even though Andrews AFB was only about 20 miles away.

The flight path of AA Flight 77 near the Pentagon is indeed curious.

The two paragraphs by Stan Goff are generally correct, except it was a 330-degree turn. We are supposed to believe that the inexperienced hijacker executed a high-speed, low-altitude descending turn to the south and then to the west and then countinuing around to northeast, with the Pentagon out of his sight for most of the maneuver. Nevertheless, he came out of this blind turn perfectly aligned and well clear of those pesky high-rise apartment buildings, and at the proper altitude to hit the Pentagon at ground level. Yeah, sure!

[leesa]

7. Ask Dov Zakheim, former comptroller for DOD when trillions went missing

He was CEO of a company that made the systems that allowed highjacked plane's controls to be taken over from the ground, and the planes to be flown automatically with great precision.

He is one of the PNACers

[MellowOne]

9. I'm definitely not an expert

But did fly as a flight attendant. A pilot, captain, friend of mine who has flown for over twenty years, finds it totally miraculous that four planes fly so precisely as to not cause a midair crash. He thinks they must have had help from the ground with preplanned flight plans. Also everything he told me confirms the article posted. He feels they had to be expert pilots.

[MercutioATC]

44. A "midair crash"? Into what? Other planes?

It's a big sky. I'd find it miraculous if they DID hit another plane.

The tallest buildings in the New York skyline? Much easier.

[Abe Linkman]

47. Kinda hard to use remote control to crash one plane into another.

Much easier to use remote control to crash a plane into a tall building.

[MercutioATC]

51. That would be true, but who said anything about remote control?

Yes, a large stationary target is usually easier to hit than a small moving target that will actually try to avoid you.


What's your point?

[MellowOne]

53. The skies on the eastern coast are extremely congested

And full of commerical, military as well as private aircraft who are landing, taking off at different altitudes. That's why we use radar screens and legal separation. To know exactly where each plane is in the sky. Before a flight, the pilot submits a flight plan. If they have to get off course for any reason, it has to be cleared with the tower. You can't just take off flying in a plane in any direction you want. The chances are very great you will cross another planes course. There are several major airports in the region of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, some are short hops at low altitudes some are international flights at higher altitudes.

As many local and regional airports with hundreds of small aircraft. Even a collision with a small plane could bring a commerical plane down.

[MercutioATC]

95. Thanks for the ATC lesson...

;)


As an air traffic controller, I can tell you that what you say (with minor exceptions) is true in theory.


However, it IS a big sky. Except in expecially congested areas within a couple of miles of congested airports, you'd really have to work hard to actually have a midair collision.

[MellowOne]

121. I beg to differ

In the NYC area there are four airports: JFK, Newark, LaGuardia and Islip, plus several region airports. The NYC skies are very congested. So you say within two miles of each airport is very congested, correct? That seems like an especially congested airspace to me.

Which airport are you located? I've been in Control Towers at DFW and watched the radar screens. It was full of aircraft.

I don't understand why you and the other poster need to dispute what I'm saying. I was trying to help with the theory that 911 was an inside job. I've always felt it was, and this is just one of the many reasons I believe it is.

Where you working that day. What is your point of view?

[MercutioATC]

122. I'm at Cleveland Center.

We handle about 70,000 square miles of enroute airspace and work about 3 million planes a year.


I'm not addressing any part of what you're saying except the likelihood of a midair collision. Outside of the immediate area around busy airports (where all of the 9/11 planes were still in the pilots' hands and were still obeying clearances) the chance of a midair collision is remote, especially with TCAS.


I was in Atlantic City at the FAA Tech Center working on a project on 9/11 (actually, I was working on RVSM, which was just instituted on 1/20).

[MellowOne]

124. At what point did the hijackers have control?

Or does anyone really know? At what point did they stop contact with the tower?

I had this conversation with the pilots a couple weeks after 911. He must have been under the impression that the hijackers had the plane when they made the turn towards NYC. And he said, it was a miracle they didn't have a midair collision. That's it. I just wanted to state that observation.

I'm just a young girl. Don't be so hard on me.

[MercutioATC]

125. My apologies. I really wasn't trying to be hard on you.

And I do realize that you're just relaying what you've discussed with pilots.


My posts weren't meant to attack you, I was just disagreeing with the idea that a plane was likely to be involved in a midair collision because it deviated from ATC clearances.

I'm truly sorry if I came across as hostile.

[MellowOne]

171. That's OK

Probably when the pilot made the comment, he didn't know all the facts. The jury is still out on 9/11, everyone seems to have a different point of view.

Good luck with your 9/11 project.

[gbwarming]

127. Mellow, here are a couple of timelines

The 9-11 commission report
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Paul Thompson's timeline
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

[Abe Linkman]

168. Were you satisfied with Matc's answer to your ? about his point of view?

Oh. He DIDN'T? Imagine that. Must have been an oversight. I'm sure he'll tell you, now. Just don't expect it to include any explanation for the research that has shown the Official Story to be just that: a Fairy Tale. Expect it to be a fuzzy "happened pretty much like we've been told, but I do believe they may have been negligent in not doing more to stop the attacks from happening".

[MercutioATC]

194. What question? I was responding to a statement.

[Abe Linkman]

202. Actually, she asked two questions. See #121

"What is your point of view?"

[MercutioATC]

206. Three questions...I answered two.

The third wasn't answered because I wasn't going to post an answer that long right then.

Since when are you the answer police, anyway? If we're counting, I know somebody who's failed to answer a lot more questions than I have....

[Abe Linkman]

213. So, you aren't going to tell her what your point of view is? Why not?

The other day you said you support the Official Story. Is that still your position ("point of view"/opinion)? If so, why are you afraid to tell her?

[MercutioATC]

241. I'm not "afraid" to tell her, I just didn't have the time for a lengthy

explanation.

Again, when did somebody who frequently declines to answer questions become the answer police?

[Abe Linkman]

250. Will you tell her TODAY? You seem to be stalling. Why?

n/t

[MercutioATC]

256. I work today. I'll do it tomorrow.

I'm betting the forum will still be here.

[Abe Linkman]

58. Remote control made it easy to fly the 9/11 attack planes to target areas.

n/t

[MercutioATC]

96. So you're now promoting a "remote control" theory?

Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with the multitude of theories you've suggested.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

108. Another personal attack. At least you're consistent, Abe.

So you ARE promoting a "remote control" theory?


....but I thought a fighter/missile hit the Pentagon? Where did the remote control on AAL77 send it?

[Abe Linkman]

179. Alll I did was agree with your own characterization. So, why would you

call the censors in?

[MercutioATC]

188. I never alert on your posts. I want everybody to see how you respond.

I certainly didn't alert on that one. It illustrated my point perfectly.

[meppie-meppie not]

196. I thought posts were only deleted for nasty pictures? n/t

[MercutioATC]

197. Nope, personal attacks are deleted, too.

That one was a personal attack.

[meppie-meppie not]

198. oh ok, thanks for the info. I don't agree with everything or everyone so

from time to time I may seem disagreeable but I hope that my dissent isn't taken as insulting. I'll have to be more mindful.

[MercutioATC]

203. Naw, you're fine. It's all in the DU Rules...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[Abe Linkman]

200. Look around. Tons of messages get deleted here.

And, don't believe the bleaters who claim they never click on the "alert" button, either. What usually happens is, a right-winger will bait someone. That person responds. Then, the right-winger hits the "alert" button, and the "victim" (bait-taker) gets censored. Then, the right-winger feigns innocence about the whole thing and acts like they don't have a clue about what happened. SO, you have to fight fire with fire. Whenever one of them says something that you can plausibly claim is a personal attack or insult --- you are within your rights to ask a moderator to whack 'em on the pee pee for being bad.

[meppie-meppie not]

204. I'm still trying to catch with up with all the posts so by the time I get

to these deleted posts they are already gone. I'm very slow in posting because I'm slow in hunting down things and I also am slow in going through the links people provide but I sure appreciate the links as there is so much I'm learning. I'm a wee bit taken aback by some of the animosity because I think everyone has a right to their point of view no matter what others believe it's veracity to be.

[Abe Linkman]

210. How would you like it, if the discussion was about Space, and someone...

was allowed to participate, and they were insisting that the Earth is flat. See what I mean? That's the problem we have HERE. It's been long known that the Gov't lied about what happened on 9/11. Belief in the Official Story can't be considered a reasonable or valid position. We know it simply isn't true. The issues NOW are WHAT REALLY DID happen, how, who all was involved etc. ALL points of view related to THOSE questions ARE legitimate and should be (and are) encouraged here.

It's inconsiderate to distract and disrupt a discussion by continually bringing up something that has been long dismissed as not worthy of consideration.

How would you like it if someone insisted that 9/11 was masterminded by Aliens. It's a point of view, but hardly one that is deserving of being taken seriously.

Understand the frustration a little better, now? You could be forgiven for wondering why someone would come here & after three years of being here, you know they surely realize their "point of view" has been long ago discredited and shown to be wrong, false, and impossible...yet you have to put up with their distractions and disruptions.

The Chinese have a saying that seems appropriate to what THEY are doing: "A fool can ask a question that would take a thousand wise men to answer".

[meppie-meppie not]

217. I get your drift although I don't agree with the analogy. The difference

here is that everything out there, at this point in time, is all theory because there is so much secrecy shrouding the truth. Even if an idea has been shot down before is not to say that new evidence would not bring back up for reconsideration. I understand that you have a point of view that you believe strongly in and want to impart to others but they may feel the same way about their ideas. Who is to say the truth doesn't fall somewhere in between the two opposing notions?

[Abe Linkman]

230. Do tell me what YOU believe my point of view is, then.

Thank you. I'll wait.

[MercutioATC]

211. You're right. This is the 9/11 Forum. All 9/11 views should be able

to be expressed here. Unfortunately, there are some here who think that everybody who disagrees with them is a "right-winger" who is here either to disrupt or...get this....because they're paid "disinfo agents".


As long as you keep a sense of humor and try to be tolerant of others' beliefs, you'll be fine here. You'll also get a great view of some really "different" personality types...

[meppie-meppie not]

220. I get the impression you support the OCT which is fine, for myself

I'm still wading through lots of information and the one thing, perhaps the only thing I'm certain of for myself, is that the OCT is totally bogus. But I like to come to this web site to get others opinions and check out the information and links they provide. Sure do wish a real investigation would happen though.

[MercutioATC]

242. I believe that the majority of the mechanics happened as the government

states. I don't believe that everything possible was done to prevent 9/11 and I think the government has failed to admit that its own procedures actually hampered their response.

[Abe Linkman]

251. You still haven't pointed out inaccuracies in "In Plane Site". Why not?

n/t

[MercutioATC]

258. I'll get to it tomorrow.

While we're into answering questions, do you feel like answering some that you've neglected to answer over the past few months?

[Abe Linkman]

214. Truth evasion tactic #9: avoiding personal accountability.

"Another personal attack. At least you're consistent, Abe."

"Hey, look at this." NO, I didn't tell anybody. I wouldn't do that.

[meppie-meppie not]

216. if someone gets deleted because someone notified the deleting people

how can you know who it was that took issue with your post? Do moderators notify you on who made a/the complaint?

[Abe Linkman]

219. Best to pose your questions at the other place.

Don't take undue risks. They have a rule about questioning or taking issue with decisions, but there's some place on DU where you can ask questions to clarify what the rules say and how they are supposed to be interpreted and implemented. That's all I'm gonna say here.

[meppie-meppie not]

222. OK, I understand. Thanks :-) n/t

[MercutioATC]

245. No, you're not notified who alerted you.

They wouldn't even tell you if you asked. There's no way of knowing.

[MercutioATC]

244. I'm just telling it like it is.

You made a personal attack. That's why your post was deleted.

However, your post illustrated what I've said before about some people resorting to personal attacks when the don't want to answer a question or deal with an issue. I take your personal comments for what they are, so they don't bother me. I certainly didn't alert it.


(on edit)

Aren't personal attacks one of your "Truth Supression Techniques"? If so, isn't it silly to moan about somebody using "Truth Supression Techniques" when your violation of your own rules started this whole thing?

[Sweet Pea]

52. Midair?

With 4 aircraft separated by hundreds of miles, not to mention the time factor?

"Preplanned flight plans"? This reminds me of the other post that has the hijackers adhering to "instrument flight rules" (IFR).

Let's see, Mohammed...since we didn't have to file for the departure, lets make sure we stay within our filed airspeed, stay below 250 knots while under 10k, and lets do the ILS Rwy 13L approach to Kennedy to fool'em...that'll be an initial altitude of 2000 at the Telex intersection, 7.7 miles out, with an initial base heading of 133 degrees, outer marker at 6.1 dme with a no-lower-than 1500, missed approach procedures are climb to 500, then climbing left turn to 4000 via the 078 radial to Deer Park VORTAC (channel 124...lets get that dialed in) and hold there, probably with left hand turns, 20 mile legs.

Sorry mellow...your pilot/captain friend isn't anyone I'd like to have flying the plane I'M in.

[MellowOne]

55. He's not the only pilot who says the same thing

And they work for Delta, you know that little airline, sorry, guess these guys should retire. I let them know you said so.

[Sweet Pea]

60. Please!

I fly Delta a fair amount! I'd feel a whole lot better if I knew that the left-seat guy (or the right - doesn't matter) had a little better understanding of the aeronautical/aerospatial dynamics of this whole thing.

Worrying about a mid-air between these two planes or needing "preplanned flight plans" when all they had to do was turn the plane around, head east and in one case hit the Hudson and fly south to find the target and in the other case hit the coast and fly north to find the target really is pretty silly. The Pentagon would have been slightly more difficult to find for Flt 77, but anyone with even a modicum of air sense (which the hijackers obviously had) could have found the DC area with little or no problem.

Looking forward to many more safe and uneventful Delta flights!

:)

[MellowOne]

64. I don't want to argue with you

Too childish. I was talking about the two flights into the New York City area. I'm not a pilot, I was a flight attendant. I'm just telling of a conversation I had after 9/11 with some pilots friends. Midair crashes happen even when things are going on schedule. It just seems odd that these planes were able to fly in congested skies without a crash. That's it.

[meppie-meppie not]

187. a pilot friend of mine questioned the very same thing that your friends

did. My good mate said that the amount of congestion in the skies is staggering and for amateur pilots (as he considered the hijackers to be) it would be mind boggling!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

185. Not only were their navigation skills top-notch, but hitting buildings on

the ground requires a controlled descent, which seems to me to be similar to a regular landing, and clearly the hijacker pilots weren't trained to land the damned things.

So the story is very fishy.

[AZCat]

186. I disagree

I suggest you find out more about piloting aircraft - either take some lessons or query pilot friends. Landing a plane isn't the same as pointing the nose at a spot on the ground.

If you'll read through the thread, there is discussion of the hijacker flight certification - four of the nineteen had Commercial Pilot licenses with multiengine landing privileges.

[meppie-meppie not]

189. I respectfully have to disagree with you AZCat. Hani Hanjour was

a notoriously incompetent pilot. Managers of the Arizona flight school had reported him at least 5 times to the FAA. They reported him because his English abilities were a joke (characterizing them as "poor" would be an understatement) and his flying skills were so bad that they didn't think he should keep his license....

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/

[AZCat]

191. I work at a flight school so I understand the context

There is still a world of difference between claiming someone is an incompetent pilot and claiming that someone is incapable of flying an aircraft.

We have gone over this issue before here several times. Flying an aircraft encompasses many other skills besides the actual ability to handle the aircraft - programming a flight director, knowing (and being able to execute) abnormal and emergency procedures, showing competency with various types of approaches, etc. I can handle a plane, but I certainly flunk the cockpit management end of things.

A couple of months ago one of the instructors brought his 11-year-old grandson in and strapped him into the left seat in one of the simulators (the LR-60 I think). The kid had it down within ten minutes. He couldn't tell you how to fly an approach, but actually handling the plane is easy. There are a few weird issues with larger jets like the 7x7s (because of the size), but they don't pop up that often.

[meppie-meppie not]

195. my friend is a pilot for a major airline and has been doing it for over

20 years and for myself I must be honest and tell you I know nothing of flying or what it entails. But my friend went into great detail about all kinds of things that were way above my level of understanding and the one thing I took from it all was that the maneuvers that were carried out that day could not have been done by amateur pilots. Moreover, he said flying a small craft is not the same as flying a 747 or 757 and plowing into the Pentagon and flying just a few feet off the ground for a few hundred yards in a vessel that size is unbelievable. For a pilot whose only training for that size of vehicle was on a flight simulator well, it pales in logic and takes gullibility to new levels if we are to swallow the "official" story. Like my friend said to me "would you want to go driving with a person who had only driven a video car simulator?"

[AZCat]

199. Your friend is right about the differences in size changing handling

But the FAA certainly seems okay with certifying people who have trained on simulators to go fly aircraft.

For example:
Testing for Part 135: Commuter & On-Demand Operations is covered in 135.293 (SIC and PIC) and 135.297 (PIC). The only part we are not able to cover is 135.293a1 because that is specific to the Certificate Holder (the actual company). All other sections can be tested either at the center or using a Level C or D simulator. This means that all the testing with the exception of 135.293a1 is done without flying the actual aircraft.

Furthermore, I don't understand your pilot friend's issue with "flying just a few feet off the ground for a few hundred yards in a vessel that size". It happens thousands of times every day when planes land at airports. Admittedly not at that speed, but aircraft have been flown that low at that speed before and while there are things to be taken into consideration (ground effect for example) I don't think there is anything that would prevent it from happening. It's risky and stupid, but I don't think that was important in this case.


SIC = Second in Command (right seat)
PIC = Pilot in Command (left seat)

[John Doe II]

292. Questions

As you're very much into this I've some questions I'd wish to know the answers:

1. How difficult is it to fly with 520 mph with a Boeing 767 only a couple of yards over the ground?


2. How difficult is it to calculate a 330° turn and a 7000 feet descend in order to end up exactly at the point one wished to end (I mean would have been to bad for Hani if he ended somewhere where some tall buildings simply where in the view to attack the Pentagon ...)

[AZCat]

324. I attempt to answer your questions...

Question 1: How difficult is it to fly with 520 mph with a Boeing 767 only a couple of yards over the ground?

Short answer: very difficult.

Long answer: there are a number of factors in play with what is called "terrain flight" (a good explanation of the term is here). Aircraft performance is actually better at lower altitudes than higher ones because the air is more dense - the engines produce more thrust, the control surfaces are more effective, and the wings (and lifting body) generate more lift.

However, the dangers of flying close to the ground far outweigh the benefits. An aircraft is vulnerable to windshear (here is a list of some windshear-related accidents) at all altitudes, but it is most dangerous when taking off or landing (or engaging in terrain flight). A lot of money has been spent researching methods for predicting windshear and there are several aircraft-mounted systems that might make terrain flight safer (see this page for a summary of windshear issues and technological fixes).

The final factor is that flying close to the ground means that obstacles can obstruct the flight path (obviously this doesn't happen at 35,000 feet). Higher velocities reduce reaction time, and larger aircraft like the 767 take longer to manoeuver because of the increased inertia over smaller craft. There has been, again, a great deal of money spent on methods to prevent the various Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) scenarios (here is a description of some CFIT issues). Most of this has focused on Approach-To-Landing CFITs, but there are also systems for avoiding Flight Into Terrain when Not in Landing Configuration. These are known collectively as Terrain Avoidance Warning Systems (TAWS) or Ground Proximity Warning Systems (GPWS - currently being phased out in large aircraft in favor of TAWS).

Question 2: How difficult is it to calculate a 330° turn and a 7000 feet descend in order to end up exactly at the point one wished to end (I mean would have been to bad for Hani if he ended somewhere where some tall buildings simply where in the view to attack the Pentagon ...)

In order to answer this question, one has to know how long it took to descend the 7000 feet in altitude. I have seen somewhere around here that it was approximately 2.5 minutes but feel free to correct me. 7000 feet in 2.5 minutes is a descent rate of about 2800 feet/min (all while executing a 330 degree turn). Planning a manoeuver like this isn't that difficult if the pilot has time (and a good map) but flying it I am not qualified to judge. I can make some pertinent comments that might help clarify the issue.

The best comparison I can make is with certain approaches that have similar conditions. One I am familiar with is the Aspen, Colorado Airport approach (you can reference this approach plate - see this page for a primer on how to read approach plates). From the Red Table VOR (14,000 feet) to the runway is about 6,000 feet, although an aircraft might hit the VOR at over FL140. Aspen is rough because the high altitude means the air is less dense and this means the minimum approach speeds are higher (stall speed is higher). There are some obstacles (mountains) close to the airport that must be avoided also.

It's about 12 miles from Red Table to the airport so an aircraft travelling at approach speeds would probably take about five minutes to descend (very rough calculation). It's dangerous and there have been a number of accidents over the years. A good accident report is here (warning - pdf) if you are curious about the particulars of the Aspen approach. I'd show you other approach plates, but you can no longer download them for free (I was lucky to find Aspen).

Executing a 330 degree turn in 2.5 minutes gives about 2 deg/sec. This isn't a particularly harsh turn, and I don't think that even if Hanjour was descending it would be a problem. Hitting the target, on the other hand, might prove difficult. Someone else in this thread (I think it was Old and In the Way) tried this in Microsoft Flight Simulator and found it difficult, but Hanjour might just have been lucky.


While I don't expect this to answer your questions completely, I hope that this information will help.

[Abe Linkman]

205. Once you accept their premise (which is unproven), they've won.

You don't have any proof that Hani was even on an airplane on 9/11, much less the small jet that crashed at the Pentagon. Yet, here you are, in a no-win situation for YOU, because you're arguing about an opinion that is based on an unproven premise. In this situation, YOU LOSE, because anyone can have an opinion, and if theirs is just as valuable as yours, YOU LOSE, because THEIRS supports the lie that 9/11 happened the way bushco says it did.

Wouldn't it make more sense to FIRST demand proof that there were "terrorists" on "the" plane - BEFORE you argue about their piloting skills? Otherwise, it's a useless exercise, isn't it?

[AZCat]

207. I thought this was about the truth, Abe

Not winning or losing.

[meppie-meppie not]

208. good point AZ...the issue is trying to get to the truth..

there are many of us who believe that the "official" story has too many holes in it, too many contradictions from the first day to 6 months later to now. But do we know with certainty what really happened if not the official line? No! So we are simply asking any and all manner of questions and keep on digging.

[Abe Linkman]

212. Don't be so silly. You want the TRUTH to prevail, don't you?

It can't if you are unable to use logic in reasoning. You know about logic, don't you? You know about arguing over something that is based on a lie, don't you? You understand why it's important to FIRST know whether there was even a B757 that crashed at the Pentagon...before you
start arguing over your opinion about the flying skills of the alleged pilot?

A few people here support a long-ago discredited theory (what buscho says happened on 9/11), and anyone can have an opinion; no matter how wrong it is or how uninformed it may be. But,if you have to accept an opinion that is based on a false premise, as being valid, then truth is likely to become a victim.

[meppie-meppie not]

215. Abe, I have many questions when it comes to the Pentagon but when it

comes right down to it, if the 757 didn't go into the Pentagon then where is that plane and it's passengers? Because, if we in accepting the premise that it's not necessary to consider the flying skills (or lack thereof) of the hijacker's owing to the idea that it wasn't the 757 that went into the Pentagon then using that logic and reasoning we are left questioning where is the plane and the people that were on it?

[Abe Linkman]

224. Bingo!

Those are the kind of questions that serious people have been asking. Finding out the answers is very, very difficult because the Gov't has suppressed and destroyed evidence, has witnessess who can't talk because of secrecy oaths, Security clearances, contractual agreements and so forth.

First off, Dulce Decorum has proven that FL 77 (B757) was NOT a scheduled flight on 9/11. There are no records in the BTS database showing that such a flight departed or was scheduled to arrive (in L.A.) on 9/11.

In fact, Dulce has also proven that according to the Govt's own records, that particular plane was still in service AFTER 9/11.

As others have said, remember: IF a B757 HAD crashed at the Pentagon, the Gov't would have released the photo image of it doing so, instead of
selectively releasing images and excluding the most crucial ones.

READ more. You already know what the Official Conspiracy Theory is, and you know it makes no sense. So, rather than wasting time reading more about IT, read about what critics and researchers have discovered that the Gov't doesn't want you to know.

[gbwarming]

228. Let's be precise Abe. Dulce has shown some things for sure:

Things that Dulce has shown:
1. Flights 11 and 77 are not listed in the BTS database
2. The flight 77 airplane is still registered in the FAA database.

Things that Dulce has not shown:
1. Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on 9/11/01
2. That the flight 77 airplane is or was still in service after 9/11.

[Abe Linkman]

231. If you have proof that UNSCHEDULED flights flew, kindly provide it.

Thank you.

[DulceDecorum]

246. What DulceDecorum actually said:

N 334AA Flight 11
Serial 22332 Issued 1/6/2000 Registration: Cancelled 1/14/2002

N 644AA Flight 77
Serial 24602 Issued 5/8/1991 Registration: Cancelled 1/14/2002

N 591UA Flight 93
Serial 28142 Issued 7/1/1996 Registration: Valid

N 612UA Flight 175
Serial 21873 Issued 1/18/1984 Registration: Valid
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x18365

[Old and In the Way]

234. Was 77 involved in the live-fly exercise on 9/11?

How about 11, 175, and 93? I believe that the PIC of 77 was in the Naval Reserve and was involved with developing the simulation? Is that correct?

If the answer is yes to one or more of these flights, that would be very ineresting. And it might explain why the government has not used Vigilant Guardian as the official excuse to blame the AF absymal performance on 9/11. Because if they were involved, maybe the terrorists were simulated as well?

[Abe Linkman]

227. Here's more on the dynamics that take place

See, if it was simply a matter of people posting their point of view, that would be fine (except for what I've already talked about - the business of points of so-called points of view that we know are not true)...but here's what happens:

* A's point of view is that the OCT is the truth.

* B says the OCT is baloney & that 9/11 couldn't have happened the way we've been told, so MAYBE this or that would explain it.

* A demands that B PROVE what B just said.

See? A really isn't just interested in expressing a point of view. A
is actively seeking to undermine ANY point of view that conflicts with the OCT.

To take it one tiny step further,

* B turns around and says the OCT is a lie & maybe challenges A to prove A's position.

* A loves that, because now A can cite some report (NIST, ASCE , 9/11 Commission Hearings Report etc.) and claim the cited report proves that his/her position is correct.

* Meanwhile, if B cites a source, then A plays shoot the messenger, and trys to discredit the source or simply says that the Gov't report is more authoritative, or maybe finds some minor detail that the source had to guestimate because the Gov't controls the information which would be needed in order to be 100% accurate, and A trys to make a big deal out of a minor point that almost always has nothing to do with the main issue.

So, for every step forward that B makes, as a result of A's disruptions, B has to take two steps back.

Meanwhile, A pretends to be "ONLY" expressing his/her point of view and that B should be fair and not interfere with A's right to do that.

Still with me?

In other words, ALL ALONG, rather than merely expressing his/her point of view, A has ACTIVELY sought to UNDERMINE ALL OTHER attempts to uncover, exchange, and discuss information and ideas that might help advance our knowledge of the truth about what really happened on 9/11.

[MercutioATC]

243. If "B"'s evidence consisted of expert opinion, "A" might consider it

more seriously. As it is, "B" has only been able to provide lay opinion from people who are basing their arguments on a few pictures, not firsthand observation.


"B" might want to stop citing sources such as Eastman and VonKleist (who don't understand the mechanics of at least half of what they talk about) if he or she wishes to be taken seriously.

[Abe Linkman]

253. Fine example of shooting the messenger.

People who use such tactics may well be suspected of:

* Weak mind

* Inability to THINK

* Lack of crtical reasoning skills

* Supporter of a proven lie & unwilling to admit it

* Disinformation agent wannabe

[The Magistrate]

255. Nonsense, Mr. Linkman

When you attempt to argue from authority, you stand up your "messengers" as targets, for if they can be impeached than any argument based upon them falls. In many instances here, the "authorities" cited are of such poor metal that they are not so much merely stood up as targets, but stood up with backs to a wall and blind-folds tied, waiting for the firing detail....

"The mind wobbles...."

[MercutioATC]

257. Actually, I was shooting the message, not the messenger.

I couldn't care less who cites them, the resources are flawed.

[Abe Linkman]

260. Saying the "resources" are flawed doesn't refute the MESSAGE in them.

It's easy to be critical, but impossible for YOU to refute the messages.
That's why you have to shoot the messenger. You can't argue with the message. H---, you can't even back up your claims about the video you've said contains "numerous accuracies". SAYING it has numerous inacuracies, without proving it has inaccuarcies, demonstrates your weakness as someone whose opinions are deserving of serious consideration.

[MercutioATC]

267. Fine, I'll be more specific. The MESSAGE is flawed.

I've already explained my issues with Eastman and some of VonKleist's work. I'll post my issues with "In Plane Sight" tomorrow.

[Abe Linkman]

268. You've never refuted Eastman. You've only attacked him.

Look, I don't care about your "issues" with "In Plane Sight", but there are still plenty of people who don't realize that arguing in support of the Official Conspiracy Theory is arguing in support of something that has already been proven to be a lie. It's like saying that you "support" or
that you "believe" in or that it's your "opinion" or "viewpoint" that the Earth is flat. You are certainly entitled to have that belief, but
when it comes to 9/11, many people may not be aware that the OCT is false, and that an "opinion" in support of it is an opinion that is rooted in a lie, and doesn't deserve the same respect as one that is based on credible evidence, objective observers, and logic. The state of knowledge about 9/11 has moved way past the point of considering the OCT as a serious explanation of what happened on 9/11. There is a very small group of people here who are disruptors because they do not want new people to find out that the OCT is a lie. Their tactics are well-known: pretend to be "just sharing their viewpoint", shooting the messenger, magnifying minor points way out of proportion so as to try and discredit them, demanding proof that they know can't be produced because the Gov't has either destroyed it, or won't release it, quoting from alleged witnesses who are bound by secrecy oaths, loyalty oaths, security clearances or contractual agreements, and thus are ONLY going to say things that support the OCT, and on and on and on.

That small group must be countered by those who are here as sincere, objective, seekers of the truth about what really happened on 9/11.

[meppie-meppie not]

269. I see a lot of that "shooting the messenger" going on in these 9/11 forums

and it's disconcerting to say the least. I don't understand why those who ascribe to the OCT version of 9/11 don't just start their own threads devoted to that viewpoint. Repeatedly I see people being attacked and disparaged just because they don't believe the OCT account. What I can't understand is why some people are so threatened by the questions we raise. In the end all that matters is getting to the truth.

[MercutioATC]

274. Meppie, please look at the content of the posts.

Notice which people are discussing ISSUES and which are suggesting that those who don't agree with them leave the forum.

Notice which people discuss the content of the posts and which make personal attacks.

Notice which freely divulge which areas they have professional experience in and which refuse to state any background (though they are "experts" in every field).

Notice which will stick to a discussion's topic and which insist on changing the issue when they're asked a question they don't want to answer.

Yes, things get heated at times and nearly everybody is guilty of an occasional exasperated post, but look at the overall content.
You may find that there are a few of those who support conspiracy theories who are the worst offenders.

[Name removed]

277. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

282. Thanks for illustrating my point, Abe.

"Scary, I know. But, they're here, and they aren't leaving, because every new person is prospect for learning the truth about what really happened on 9/11, and those who support the Bush Conspiracy Theory are going to do everything they can (and they have all of the freedom they need) to try and convince new people to believe in a Fairy Tale."

Suggesting that people with differing viewpoints should not be here and questioning the personal motivations of other posters instead of the content of their posts...just as I said.

[Name removed]

293. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

296. Thanks yet again!

You seem especially helpful today, Abe. It's a nice change.

[Name removed]

298. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

300. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

306. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

312. The better question is WHY?

Bad news hurts? 20 years ago, right-wingers in California School Districts began a stealth campaign to get elected to school boards in order to be able to control what textbooks would be used in classrooms.
That kind of effort continues to this day. Right-wingers who used to be
"Creationists" have morphed into the more acceptable-sounding "Intelligent Design" supporters. As RR said: "Facts Are Stupid Things". They are very inconvenient to debate polluters.

[The Magistrate]

314. So It Is Your View, Mr. Linkman

That we here on Democratic Underground who disagree with your peculiar views in this matter are part of a long-term rightist stealth campaign of infiltration aimed at interferinmg with your important work...?

"Honey, I couldn't be prouder of you if you thought you were Napoleon."

[AZCat]

316. Why, Abe?

Because inappropriate behavior does not belong at Democratic Underground. If you'd like a refresher, here is a pertinent paragraph from the DU rules:

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.


I will alert on any post that I perceive as violating the DU code of conduct. The mods don't always agree with me, but I am within my rights as a member to engage in such behavior.


If you have difficulty respecting this, bring it up with the administrators of the message board. If your argument is so persuasive, why not present it to Skinner? There's an entire forum for discussions like that.

[John Doe II]

304. I couldn't agree more

:toast:

[MercutioATC]

270. That's a pretty paranoid worldview.

Since when does everybody with a differing opinion have some sinister agenda?

Abe, you have an opinion about 9/11. You're just going to have to reconcile the fact that there are people who have differing opinions. They're not "disruptors" or "bushco apologists", they're just people who have interpreted the data differently.

There are those of us who believe that most elements of the official explanation of events are esentially true. Interestingly, most people who have professional knowledge of technical issues having to do with 9/11 (engineers, pilots, air traffic controllers) find major holes in all of the conspiracy theories that have been presented so far.


Oh, and I DID refute Eastman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x14613#14853

[Abe Linkman]

272. You believe in a theory that was disproven three years ago.

Sincere, objective truthseekers have known almost from day One, that the Conspiracy Theory you support is a lie told by the lying liars of the buscho administration.

Why someone would continue doing that is a subject that can't be openly discussed here, but you don't have to be an engineer from Drexel to know about how the public comes to accept lies from the Government.

[MercutioATC]

273. It wasn't "disproven", Abe. It's in question.

There's a pretty big difference.

[Abe Linkman]

278. Some people say that about evolution, flat earth, no man on the moon etc.

Let's put it this way: the BUSH Conspiracy Theory is not and has never been supported with credible evidence. Aspects of the BUSH Conspiracy Theory have been long-known to be a lie (Olson FL 77 calls, e.g.).
The only people who still support the BUSH Conspiracy Theory either don't know anymore today than they did on 9/11 or else they are simply being expedient whenever they express support for the BUSH Conspiracy.
"They" would say that the 2000 election hasn't been proven to have been stolen - they'd say it's in question. RIGHT. You agree? "They" would say that the issue of Saddam having WMD hasn't been proven to be a lie -
they'd say it's in question. You agree?

There is something that's in question about supporters of the BUSH Conspiracy Theory, but, fortunately for them, THAT question can't be discussed.

[MercutioATC]

281. I guess we just see this one differently.

:shrug:

[Abe Linkman]

297. Flat Earth believers

Yep. We do "see" things differently. I think belief in the BUSH 9/11 lies has no place in a serious discussion about 9/11. Obviously, you disagree.

[MercutioATC]

299. Sorry, I'm not biting.

I think our differences of opinion are clear enough without resorting to juvenile name-calling.

[Abe Linkman]

313. Thanks for agreeing on their equivalence.

Whether it's "Intelligent Design", "Creation Theorists", "Flat Earth" believers, or ___, the similarities are striking.

[MercutioATC]

320. Please show me where I agreed they were equivalent.

I certainly didn't mean to.

[Democrat Dragon]

321. Bush concpiracy theories are largely based on odd coincidences

"Let's put it this way: the BUSH Conspiracy Theory is not and has never been supported with credible evidence. Aspects of the BUSH Conspiracy Theory have been long-known to be a lie (Olson FL 77 calls, e.g.).
The only people who still support the BUSH Conspiracy Theory either don't know anymore today than they did on 9/11 or else they are simply being expedient whenever they express support for the BUSH Conspiracy."

Like evolution and election fraud 2004, MIHOP is based on numerous coincidences and tieing them together, but no smoking gun.

It's sorta like a trial, both sides present evidence, even circumstantial evidence in valid in courts. Just because there is no "smoking gun" dosen't mean you should shove it off completely. Shoving it off complety is a symptom of black & white thinking.

[Name removed]

264. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.